Agenda 12/14/2010 Item # 8A
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 1 of 407
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829: Collier Davis, LLC, represented by Robert Andrea of Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to
the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project to be
known as the Davis Reserve MPUD to allow for the development of a maximum of 234
dwelling units including affordable housing and a maximum of 35,000 square feet of
commercial retail and office uses. The subject property, consisting of 22.83 acres, is located
in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road, in
Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staff's findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Plmming Commission
(CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this PUD rezone
petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in
order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS:
This Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Ordinance proposes a maximum of 234
dwelling units including aff()rdable housing, and a maximum of 35,000 square feet of
commercial retail and office uses.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building pennits to help offset the
impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as
needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order
to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development
order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation
Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include
building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad
valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please
note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the
Planning Commission to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMPl IMPACT:
Comprehensive Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has found it consistent with the
applicable policies of the FLUE. A detailed analysis of the project's consistency with the FLUE,
and any other relevant GMP Elements is contained in the attached Staff Report.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829; Davis Reserve MPUD
Revised 211/16/10
Bee Hearing Date 12/14/10
Page t of5
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 2 of 407
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
This item was heard by the CCPC at the September 2,2010 hearing. A motion was made by
Commissioner Schiffer and seconded by Commissioner Midney to approve this request. That
motion failed with a vote of 2-6, with Commissioners Schiffer and Midney voting in the
affIrmative and Commissioners Strain, Ahem, Caron, Murray and Ebert voting in the negative.
Thus, the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is one of denial.
There was a lengthy discussion about this petition. Ultimately, 23 items of concern were raised.
The list of concerns is shown in the attached document. For further details, please refer to the
attached excerpt from the CCPC minutes lelr that petition.
As part of that September 2, 2010 hearing, the petitioner's agent agreed to make the following
changes to the PUD documents:
I. Exhibit A, Mixed Use Tract, Section 8.1.2:
a. Add townhouse units; and
b. Clarify the Miscellaneous Retail Services, (Groups 5912-5963, 5992-5999) use shall
be revised to include the limitation stating, "The retail services building must be
5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area, except that drug stores are not subject to
this noor area limitation."
c. Remove Amusement & Recreation Services (Group 7911) use; and
d. Revise to indicate that the following uses will require Conditional Use Approval:
I) Education Services (Groups 8211-8222); and
2) FratemalLodges.Private Club, or Soeial Club
3) Schools, Vocational (Groups 8232-8299)
2. Exhibit B:
a. Revise Tables I and II to include the limitation that structures within the
MU/Commercial portion of the project shall be limited to a maximum of 3 stories in
height; and
b. Revise Tables I & II A, to reflect that "Buildings shall primarily front private rights-
of~way, rather than public rights-of-way; and
c. Table II: Change Average Lot Width to Minimum Lot width; and
d. Table ll: Change Minimum Floor Area Ratio to Maximum Floor Area Ratio; and
3. Revise Exhibit C to include MU and R tract lines;
4. Revise Exhibit E as follows:
a. Add Item I. under Transportation to state that neither the developer nor his assigns
will seek any sound attenuation devises from the county for either County Barn Road
or Davis Boulevard; and
b. Revise General, item 7.D. to indicate that a minimum of 47 residential units will be
provided in the commercial mixed-use component.
c. Add E to General, to indicate that the developer will provide at least one swimming
pool and one tot lot, to be available when the first certificate of occupancy is issued.
These changes have not been made, pending the decision of the Board.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829; Davis Reserve MPUD
Revised 211/16/10
Bee Hearing Date 12/14/10
Page 2 of5
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 3 of 407
Because there are letters of objection and the cepe recommended denial, this petition cannot be
placed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is a site specific rezone from an Estates (E) Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Davis Reserve 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 (BCe),
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 ofthc listed criteria below.
Criteria for MPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for
approval or not.
I. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development
proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements,
contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that an~ not to be provided or maintained
at public expense? Findings and recommendations of'this /;pe shall be made only
a,fier consultation with the Coun(y Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposcd MPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
ofthe Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: The internal and extemal 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.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829; Davis Reserve MPUD
Revised 211/16/10
Bee Hearing Date 12/14/10
Page 3 of 5
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14.2010
Page 4 of 407
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 mecting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed MPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern?
Ii. Would the requested MPUD Rezonc result in the possible creation of an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts')
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development, or otherwise affixt 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 III
accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...)
22. Is the change suggested out of scal e with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829; Davis Reserve MPUD
Revised 211/16/10
Bee Hearing Date 12/14/10
Page 4 of 5
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14.2010
Page 5 of 407
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already pennitting 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 adequa/e 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.l06, art.ll], 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
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 Ot1ice. This Executive Summary has been reviewed for legal sufficiency
and is legally sut1icient for Board action. (HFAC)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff cannot support this petition in its current fonn given the issues raised at the CCPC hearing
that remain unresolved.
PREPARED BY:
Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Land Development Services
Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation
Attachments: I) Staff Report
2) Ordinance
3) Application
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829: Davis Reserve MPUD
Revised 211/16/10
Bee Hearing Date 12/14/10
Page 5 of5
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 6 of 407
COLLIER COUNTY
BOAr~D or COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
3A
Tliis item continued from the November 9. 2010 Bee meeting at staffs request. This item
requires 11131 all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
Iw:mhe:r"s Collier Davis, LLC, represented by Robert Andrea of Coastal Engineering
Consull;:Hlts, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Mixed Use
Planned Unil Development (MPUD) zoning dislr-jet lor a project to be known as the Davis
Reserv~ IvlPLJD to allow for the developrnent of a maximum of 234 dwelling units including
affordable housing and a maximum of 35,000 square feet of commercial retail and office
W;(~S_ The subject plolJerty, consif,{ing of 2283 acres, is located in the southeast quadrant of
lhf~ jnters~::ction of Davis Boulevard and Counly Barn F~oad, in Section 8, Township 50 South,
R:li1qe 2G Fast. Colliel County, Florida. (Related to Itern 16A4)
1:'/ 1.l!2(] 1lJ 9 (]OOOL\11
Prepared By
F'8j" F3,,:liolNS
C.OHllnl,.ln;tv D(>\I(.'!r'!lln0tl1 g
Ell'/ironlnellt;ll ~;0rvic",:~
Fi:3na~Wl - Fk1111linq
Date
Z,':)njn~l (:, I,and IJc.vclopm!:tlt R(~vi'~w
10/29/201010:29:11 AM
Apprond By
.IudV P'I'q
COl))ll1lli!il'J !Jnvc!opnIPnJ g
'.:ll.!tnlrhl11cntJ! -5'" 'fiCL'"
r';H~:';]!jc't)~ !\ll,IIV::~,!
Date
(:"Il1!ll1ll1iIV [)r';.rpl"\~'I1'c>ld ,'1,
[""in_'11t11,nll;l! ::)"!'!ic'''s
'11/l"ii2tJ'lO 3:'16 PM
Approved R:y
nick 1~::1c;:i";,ltl(JUirk
'1 r:.lrr"~pf')rtc'lli,Jt1 Ui' !,';jnrl
[i;'(~cl:.j -11;~:i3P',llt~~hT_'1' ':~lI1!lin~1
Date
r;'1I<',p ,np;i:HI f'1:'rHl~l1(J
1'l/18!2010 1:07 PM
Approved By
,il '{ t::, ,-~ Ii', "
C';lll!H I:)i~" [1' <\u 'i"!,!l!''';j ,",
Ii '/ i ! ()! l' )1 " ~ !1:? !
,'ice...
Approved fl)'
V',!iiii;l'm U ;JlI
,;' ['r
(:.Ol1ltrll!PiiV UCVC1!Tlni"! t i:
C:nl!irl'lnm'~llt31 SClvk,""
r;:;'niiU'<" ["(;1117\j, '1.-1
Dille>
liii(! t' ~. :~;1,~1 I "\Vek'!1iil"'n~ n(:'\fi;~\N
1'l/18!2010 6:34 PM
Uit,"jf;.'
i'!l(Gll""'.'ll!lU :;enlj[)( "
flaie
l:,p::;iIV>';iin:1 FIT-ilo!'111f'11t~'d Se!-,"ic',s
11/2012010 '10:57 AM
Approved By
[.If/nll E, r~odn~ Idcr
-r r2nSpC}ft;:>l'jnp Ui', j'-',fUI!
'ilnirlisU:-'I'" r 1')1'10.('0: !;:'UD!l
Date
'1 r;ln".!,,\~l;~liflli /\litll1pis~r;ltio'\
11/22/2010 9:58 AM
Approved By
l-1cicli F. Ashton
COlllJtv AttuHl';V
..._ ~!inll Chi"[!I..;::nc! Uc.c, I l'iH\SporlaUon
Uat~~
C:c",nd\,' ,\ftu1 !l"Y
12/1/201012:30 PM
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 7 of 407
Approved By
orviS Coordirr3tU!
Date
Cr.un!"1 f':.bn?T'!'? ~Yfi' '^'
1_\f!i'~lC. <1f r.,1;")1"1(1'-nl":~1 r. n(idw~t
12/1/70103:31 PM
Approved By
Tllerese Stalllpy
1\~8lwqnr - OlierathrlS S! Ipport - 1 raIlS
Date
OHice of MBn;H.jemenl g
Budq01
Office; !\f r'ili1!l,1tJE'IWJt1t i!~ Budget
Im:2010 3:53 PM
Approved Ily
Jr:lf t\13t]_I~'.l""
C>Hllltv tltu: I),:.y
Date
12f2f2010 9:11 AM
Approved By
!.J~('l F:_ U;:Il~:. .Jr
"tH\l\' ['{'ll);".!"!
U8!C
CnlJrlli' L!l"I1,"'V'!~: (:!iiC,t)
C>IlI:IIV r,'I;:l!F1tJ"'t<:-_ 'tflir'"
12fGf2010 1:51 PM
AG~jllliMl!N} 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 8 of 407
Co1ff~r County
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
ZONING SERVICES--LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARlMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2010
SUBJECT: PUDZ-2004-AR-6829; DAVIS RESERVE MPUD
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: Barry Goldmeier, President
Collier Davis LLC
250 Catalonia Ave, Suite 702
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Agent(s): Robert Andrea
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.
3106 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
REOUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of the
subject site from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)
zoning district for a project to be known as the Davis Reserve MPUD.
PROJECT STATUS:
The Collier County Planning Commission originally heard this petition on May 7, 2009. At that hearing,
the petitioner continued the petition to address concerns raised by the CCPC at that hearing.
The petitioner has submitted a letter dated July 21, 2010 that summarized the issues to be addressed (see
copy attached). The applicant's agent has also submitted a revised PUD document; a revised Master
Concept Plan; a revised Growth Management Plan analysis; a revised Statement of Utility Provisions;
Parcel l31 documents; a copy of the access easement and the access easement agreement (with Berean
Baptist Church; a memo from TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., addressing Transportation issues;
and conceptual road cross-sections.
Davis Reserve MPUD, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
September 2,2010 CCPC
Revised: 8/9/10
Page 1 of 8
!
./
!!
.
w
00.
:;, ~ E!
Q. ~ ;;
g i ~
0.. ~;;
.~
0<
~~
.,
oj
::>!!
Q, ~
z
o
<U-
o-!:(
0;0
o
~
_"iV.~f\
W::>>
I
I,
"II
I'
_____1
,
~= ~~;_~-\ i
III _ "-"
L--- - - "-
-. \ 1.)\ \~i
\~~"r\ j ~\ 9, ~
; -1~i '- -)~I "~ ,~
~ ~ "I~-(\...--e ]I"Y~:::I'J~
l ' . ../- j
(! /m___ ....
~
o~
::>"
n.
LC
"
:: <U
I
"
"
L
0 ~
<
~ "
" !
~ ,
~ 1'-
~
, w
avOI! ~lh'e "I~noo
~
~
u.
::;
lr.
,
B
i
~0Il<'" / -.
--
-. -~ -
! ~ li~ll;~I! :.-:.~.~~.. :~..!!..i., .~' 1T--i:~51.! ! ..!;~.m
I <!i. j>: ;:1- '-.. ,..~--- '1 ! ;r : i l i
I ~ N <3':'/1 :" hf II 1 1 ! I
.~ g II,' " h .'. ''''~ -:- z ...J ---. .-' - 11
,-! . !' '" ~~ l~!ij !I) I
b~~j F I! ~ ,!I! ..;~_',~ ~ ~ ,,;,liU'y . i J hE ',1-1 :~ " "
. >Il~\-,I l! ,-! "~"~< I.IL. L L~,~ I...~.:::;.~'-,._ ~h [_ -\,,--L~--.~~l
!:I' '-.
~ x 't!i~ "~I '
9Sd~ ~
!~"!:; ~~_I / "i ,11.._ m~li~i L. t- ~_~ _~ r FU i/d:.~~
I I, ~!, ; ~;:--".= ._1 1...1 _c ,,_,_. ..' I
'\ ./ J' --- - -I (5-"J! oj / ,14 1r..:r-
I ;IC 1-' ! !!r' \I~ ';:::;'1 ,Ii tl -<Jij,lg i. I '/!;; " i
1" \,,' , , ~'-"'l- '. I . 't ""-Y CJ i
' "";'j! \ I I L",,'"- ;! Ii ;11 :11. /fY l '
j 1., I -! '. L_'mm __
I"~ TIL 1 -]r=:": i~ I.' I II; ~i I' ,Ii. ~I/(J I · i
:'" i~' 'Iii [ 1\;Ub.. ~Li j I \ j \'- './.1'/ i! i lii~l;l'
1m ~ JI II 111, '~L'r'-I..l""
iTro>I !lHrnlolU'O"""" - ~ !:i~~ ~..! f - ~
i I < I" Ii ",. . ..
'~i': !l
I, "
I \
~- 'I !
. I. --
- - ----_~L_..-
"
s
a..
<(
~
(9
Z
Z
o
N
0>
N
~
"',
,
'"
<,
..
o
o
N
,
N
o
"
ii.1
"I
z,
o
'::1
~I
a..
<(
~
z
o
I-
<(
o
o
--1
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 10 of 407
JDITIONAL ANALYSIS:
The Department of Land Development Services Department Staff recommendation has changed to
reflect the petitioner's changes in the PUD document. The original staff recommendation was a
recommendation of approval subject to the stipulation that either of two things must occur:
1) The AHDBA and PUD document shall be revised to expressly limit residential development to 234
units, resulting in a density of 10.25 units per acre, based upon a consistent application of the density
bonuses allowances of the GMP to with 187 of the 234 dwellings comprising the residential component,
while no less than 47 affordable and workforce residential units would be located above ground floor
commercial establishments in mixed-use buildings; QK
2) The BCC makes a policy decision regarding whether:
A. The overall density is limited because additional density cannot be derived from locating
affordable-workforce housing in the commercial part of the PUD, where additional density is
already awarded; and
B. Density bonuses can be derived from affordable-workforce housing units that are not
geographically located in the residential part of the PUD; and
C. Density blending, as residential density generated from calculations including the commercial
tract can be transferred to the residential part of the PUD.
An affirmative determination for ALL three issues would therefore deem this petition, as proposed,
consistent with the FLUE/PLUM
The petitioner no longer seeks additional density using an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement
(AHDBA), and the petitioner has revised the density to limit it to a maximum of 234 units and agreed to
place residential units within the commercial portion of the project. Final determination of GMP
compliance for the residential unit placement will be addressed during plat/SDP review as noted in
Exhibit F.3.D that states:
Compliance to applicable zoning and sub-district standards and criteria shall be verified during the
design and Site Development Plan (SDP) phase of the project.
Therefore, those stipulations no longer need to be included. Analysis of the current documents now
indicates that this PUD can be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
ATTACHED INFORMATION:
The Staff Report prepared for the May 7, 2009 Planning Commission meeting is attached. A June 30,
2010 GMP Consistency Review memo is attached that addresses the revised position of the
uavis Reserve MPUD, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
September 2,2010 CCPC
Revised: B/9/10
Page 2 of B
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 11 of 407
Comprehensive Planning staff. In addition, the items referenced above are also attached--a revised PUD
document; a revised Master Concept Plan; a revised Growth Management Plan analysis; a revised
Statement of Utility Provisions; Parcel 131 documents; a copy of the access easement and the access
easement agreement (with Berean Baptist Church; a memo from TR Transportation Consultants, Inc.,
addressing Transportation issues; and conceptual road cross-sections.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
This petitioner has held four Neighborhood Information Meetings. The first NIM was held on March 2,
2005, and the second was held on May 29, 2007, the third was held on June 30, 2008, and the fourth on
November 3,2009. The synopses of those meetings are provided below.
The agent/applicant held the first NIM at the Unity of Naples Church, Fellowship Hall, 2000 Unity Way,
Naplcs on March 2, 2005. Five persons other than the applicant's team and county staff attended. The
applicant and agent began the presentation with comments referencing the area to a GMP Amendment for
mixed-use sub-district Davis Blvd./County Barn Road "neighborhood commercial" center that was
approved by the BCC: CP-2004-5 and is currently being reviewed by the Department of Community
Affairs. The applicant stated that the conceptual project shown on the graphics was to follow the
"Community Character" plan recommendations with possible joint shared access with the Baptist ehurch,
be bike/pedestrian friendly and include up to 45,000 sq. f1. of retail/office in a "traditional" neighborhood
design, including residential over commercial, parking in rear of buildings facing and near streets. The
applicant also went on to state the following points:
Three and 2 hedroom residential town-homes
3 stories buildings
4 stories total including parking
Multi-family, no single family units
34-35 "Semi-affordable" loft condominiums
Op to 248 residential units, then 280-290 units stated later
Developer committed to sidewalks per code
Access through courtyards
Ingress, egress at Davis Blvd and County Barn Roads
Buffering requirements negotiated with Seacrest School.
Concern stated by Falling Waters resident Mr. Simonelli, over traffic impacts, saying that Falling Waters
and Countryside have asked FDOT for traffic signal and stated his name and address for public notice as
Mr. Simonelli, Falling Waters Master Association, 7200 Davis Boulevard, Naples, 34104.
Mr. Peter Costello of Glen Eagle questioned whether the proposal would include a Homeowners
Association, to which the applicant responded yes.
Project planner, Mike Bosi advised the applicant and agent to hold another NIM based on the new
information; agent for the applicant agreed stating "we'll come back and do another meeting; we've made
some amendments since the required advertising".
Davis Reserve MPUD, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
September 2, 2010 eepe
Revised: 8/9/10
Page 3 of 8
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 12 of 407
.le second NIM was held on May 29, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. at the Berean Baptist Church. 1birty two
persons signed the attendance sheet that was provided. Residents of Glen Eagle and Falling Waters were
both represented at the meeting as well as residents or persons from other areas. Attendees asked about
the proposed density and the intensity of the commercial uses and about the intended preservation and
buffering amounts. Concerns were raised about the proposed affordable housing component and the
density proposed in the overall project citing concerns that the project would be too concentrated. A
discussion ensured among the attendees regarding personal experiences relative to affordable housing.
Questions were raised and answered by the petitioner's agent about Davis Boulevard improvements and
about the proj ect' s proposed access on Davis Boulevard. Concerns were raised about the price points
mentioned by the petitioner. Responding to an inquiry about how the project would look, the petitioner
mentioned several projects of his in other locales. The petitioner presented drawings to show what the
project might look like upon completion. Staff noted that these drawings would not be binding upon the
petitioner.
The pastor of Berean Baptist Church inquired about alcohol service within the project given the project's
proximity to a school and a church. The petitioner noted that the project would need to comply with the
county regulations regarding the separation distance requirements for alcohol use and sale.
In response to audience inquiries about the proposed size of the units, the petitioner indicated that he
could not commit to any specific measurements at this time, but it was his intention as of today to provide
J!!rger units. In response to questions regarding the number of stories proposed, the petitioner's agent
'icated that the residential units would be three story structures.
A discussion ensued regarding which residents would be noticed about upcoming hearings. The
petitioner's agent eXplained that signs would be posted, an ad would be placed in the newspaper, and
letters would be sent to those property owners within the distance required by the LDC. Neighbors were
encouraged to contact the staff with specific questions. The meeting ended with the petitioner's attorney
stating that the petitioner's team had already met with some property owners' associations and would be
happy to meet with others if it was requested.
The third NIM was duly noticed by the applicant and held on June 30, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. at the Berean
Baptist Church. Thirteen people from the public attended, as well as the applicant's team (Shaun
Malarkey and Robert Andrea of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc, Barry Goldmeier property owner
along with County staff Kay Deselem).
Shaun Malarkey with Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing the applicant presented an
overview of the requested rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) zoning district.
Of those who had questions or concerns, the applicant's consultants responded as follows:
1. The participants were concerned with the increase of traffic on both County Barn Road and Davis
wvd, which Shaun (with Coastal Engineering) responded, that this project cannot move forward until
Uavis Reserve MPUD, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Revised: 8/9/10
Page 4 of 8
AqenrJa Itelll No. SA
December 14. 2010
Paqe 13 of 407
they received a passed traffic report from the County. He also mentioned that a new traffic report, by the
County, has shown a reduction in traffic on both roadways.
2. There was also concern regarding the right turn only onto Davis Blvd., which would then force more
vehicles to make U-turns in front of the Countryside entrance and asked if a traffic light could be installed
at that location. Kay Deselem (county staff) responded that that would be a decision the Transportation
Division would make during the plan review stage.
3. It was asked how much commercial space would be located at this site and what type of restrictions
are in place with commercial establishments with neighboring schools (Seacrest school is located next to
this location), which Shaun responded no more than 35,000 square feet of commercial space would be on
site and he would have to check on the types of establishments regarding the school.
4. Participants also wanted to know what type of residential living facilities were planned for this
development. Shaun responded that 20 percent of the residential property will be set aside for affordable
housing, of which property could only be leased/sold to people in the medium income level (maximum
$56,000 - $70,000) andJhe maximwn building height could be no more than 65 feet. The residential
property will be both rental and ownership properties.
The meeting ended at approximately 6:20 p.m.
The fourth NIM was duly noticed by the applicant and held on November 3, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the
Berean Baptist Church. Sixty-six people from the public signed in and County Commissioner Fiala
attended as well as the applicant's team (Robert Andrea of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc, Barry
Goldmeier property owner along with County staff Kay Deselem and Ray Bellows and Corby Schmitt).
Of the public attendees, Glen Eagle, Falling Waters, Countryside and Napoli were represented as well as
residents from other East Naples neighborhoods.
Concerns expressed by the residents and the consultants responses follow:
1. The residents were concerned about the affordable housing aspect and the kind of people it would
bring to the neighborhood and questioned the need for more housing and commercial space in today's
market. Residents did not agree that the proposal fit in with the current surrounding neighborhoods.
Residents also expressed concern as to whether the units could be rental units, how many of 1, 2 and 3
bedroom residences would there be and what the maximum number of stories and height of buildings
would be. The consultant responded by stating the targeted income levels they would be marketing to.
The affordable housing would be targeted for people who made between $39,650 and $48,900 per year; It
has not yet been determined if the units will be rentals; The SDP phase would indicate the layout and
number of each unit type; the maximwll number of stories would be 3 and the max height would be 55'
with the architectural clements.
2. Residents also asked the Consultant to explain the need for the rezone and what the current zone is
now for the property. Residents also asked what Estates Zoning meant and how many homes could be
built in its current zoning. The consultant responded indicating the property was currently zoned Estates
however the GMP amendment that was pa~sed required a rezoning as it could no longer be developed in
Estates zoning district. The subdistrict is mixed use and the GMP dictates what the development must
include. Ray Bellows explained the Estates Zoning regulations such as setbacks and lot size. Zone
change has to be found consisted with the GMP. This is what staff reviews for as well as compatibility.
Davis Reserve MPUD, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
September 2,2010 eepe
Revised: 8/9/10
Page 5 of 8
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14,2010
Page 14 of 407
- 'y explained the lots were preplatted, some may be 2.25 acres or 5.0 acres so it was not clear at the time
~. the meeting what the number of homes would be allowed at this time.
3. The residents expressed concern for the type of commercial business that could potentially be built.
They wanted to know the maximum square footage that anyone business could have. There was concern
over whether it could be a superstore of some sort and if that was the case the concern about the amount
of traffic it would bring to the roads. The consultant stated the maximum space allowed for one business
is 15,000 sq ft unless it was a grocery store then it could go up to 20,000 sq ft but also noted that the area
could not support that. It is in the PUD that way as the maximum. County will make sure project does
not move forward until capacity dictates it can. It was also said that the project could not move forward
until County Barn Road was expanded. There would be an access point on County Barn Road and Davis
Boulevard into the development and access easement would be shared between the development and
Berean Baptist with a turn lane.
4. Residents expressed frustration about the changes made/not made as a result of the Commissioners
last meeting where the Consultant was instructed to get together with the neighborhoods and find a way
to work this out. Residents have not heard anything since the meeting and want to know what was
changed and whom they contacted. Residents also want to see more than just the Master Plan, something
they "can sink their teeth into". The consultant pointed out the number of residential units was reduced
from 286 to 234, the setbacks and building spacings have been included in the PUD and the SIC codes
have been identified. Consultant indicated he sent letters out to the Master ,Associates for Napoli,
Countryside, Glen Eagle and Falling Waters. Consultant is unable to provide more than Master Plan at
this time.
~, Residents wanted to know if the consultant knew what the schools position was about the projeet and
affordable housing "right next door to one of the best schools in town". One resident indicated he
.<-new that Seacrest offered to buy the property a couple years ago. The consultant advised he had not
received any objections from the school.
6. Residents wanted to know about the impact to the other area schools with the possibility for
additional children and how the school would accommodate busing and where would all these potential
children play. If there are to be parks, what the definition of park is. The Consultant indicated it was up
to the school to make the busing arrangements and that it would not have a detrimental impact for the
school with the additional school children. It was also pointed out on the Master Plan where the areas for
parks would be designated and they are defined as "green open space".
7. Residents questioned if the developer was going to receive any State of Federal funding for the
affordable housing or if it was just private enterprise. The Consultant responded that there would not be
any funding and that they were following the regulation guidelines of the subdistrict. The developer was
asked to provide the 20% affordable housing. Kay stopped the Consultant to clarify if the remark about
Federal or State funding was a commitment or just a statement. Thc Consultant responded indicating
there was nothing at this time setup for State or Federal funding.
8. One resident suggested that they contact the Advisory Board members to have a meeting with them.
Kay Deselem advised them that the Sunshine Law prohibits Board members from meeting without it
being advertised. She encouraged all of them to come to the Board meetings to express their feelings
about the project. Commissioner Fiala stood up and acknowledged the residents concern and explained
that it is the County Commissioners who have the final say.
9. Residents questioned what Kay Deselem's role was in the process and wondered if the resident's
'lcerns were weighed before the decision. Another resident questioned if a signed petition would be
Davis Reserve MPUD, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
September 2,2010 CCPC
Revised: 8/9/10
Page 6 of 8
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 15 of 407
advantageous. She indicated she is the Project Manager for Zoning, she compiles every reviewers
(County Staft) comments and write a staff report and indicates whether the project is consistent with the
GMP or it is not. From that, she recommends approval or denial. The driving force is the GMP.
Resident's concerns can be heard during the Board Meetings. Kay would not tell the residents what they
should or should not do.
10. Residents wanted to know where the GMP comes from and is it specific to the land. Kay stated it was
adopted by the BCC and is reviewed by the CCPC. Yes, it is very specific to this particular piece of land
and hearings were held.
II. If this were approved, the developer could sell to someone else. The Consultant acknowledged this
could happen. Kay clarified that the zoning goes with the land, not the owner, so the new owner would
be subject to the same guidelines and regulations.
Kay Deselem advised the residents many times during the meeting that they could send her letters that she
would provide to the Board and they could also request she send them any paperwork submitted by the
Consultants or any documents going before the Board. The residents indicated they wanted copies of the
PUD documents, of which the Consultant was not prepared to provide. Kay invited the residents to make
an appointment with her to go over items such as the SIC or PUD documents and encouraged them to
stay involved. The meeting ended at approximately 7:00 p.m. (Sign in sheets from this meeting are
included in the back up material.)
Several letters from neighbors have been included in the back up material.
As noted above, to date there have been four NIMs for this petition. Staff does not believe anything
would he gained from holding another since the petitioner is responding to issues rBised during the public
hearing. Interested parties who attcnded the puhlic hearing are therefore assumed aware of the issues to
be addressed.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition on August 2, 20 I O.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
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.
Davis Reserve MPUD, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
September 2,2010 CCPC
Revised: 8/9/10
Page 7 of 8
.........REP ARED BY:
~~ hl.J!LlRlIV
KAY DE -LEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
REVIEWED BY:
~ ff:__/Z;t --
RA YM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
~~D1RJc:cTOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
APPROVF.D RY,
...- -- .--- . --- - -"
9!~1-1 //-:'
? / /~/ /
L,A/"ry) , ~,._,~J
NICK CASALANGUIDA, DE JTY ADMINISTRATOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
,~
7!JJ;; 110
DATE
7~ T.7-/0
DATE
07-2<j-'U:ru>
DATE
oS -02-20/0
DATE
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 16 of 407
Tentatively scheduled for the November 9, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Jt~1 ~ P_k~_________
MARK~TRAIN, CIIAIRMAN
Davis Reserve MPUD, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
September 2, 2010 eepe
Revised: 7/26/10
C\-1--IO
DATE
Page 8 of 8
Agenda Item No. 8A
ilecernber 14, 2010
LIST OF UNRESOLVED ISSUES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 CCPC HEARIf!lG17 of 407
I.
Consistency \vith the Cirowth Management Plan. There was concem that some of the parking shown on
tbe master plan docs not meet General Criteria 2 of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use
Subdistrict ("Subdistrict") wbich providcs "Parking areas shall be intemal to the site and screened from
County Rarn Road and Davis Boulevard."
Should scbools be a permilled use') Tbe language needed to be refined pertaining to the last five
permitted uses in tbe MU tract. Applicant wanted to be able to have charter schools, schools similar to
Scacrcst Day School and tutoring services. Should some of these uses be conditional uses?
The proposed recreation arca(s) need to he shown on the master plan.
There is no minimum number of dwelling units in the MlJ District. A minimum of 47 units was
discussed.
The minimum setback I,)r principal structures along Davis Boulcvard and County Barn Road Rigbt-of-
","ay is not suflkient. The discussion was that road right-or-way setbacks should read ;,;.25-feet or half
the zoned building height--wbichcver is greater. (PUD document, both tables)
The minimum distance between structures !()r the R District is not acceptable. Greater than 20 feet was
discussed.
The height limitation does nut lilllit the number of stories. A 3-story maximum height limitation for
buildings in both Districts was disclIssed.
Fee simple mvncrship oftmvllhouse lots was !lot included in the Development Standards for any District.
To address the potential tu hav'c ree silllply luwnhume luts, a 20 foollllinilllulll lot \vidth and 1,200 sq. n
lllininlulll lot arca was discussed 1'01' built Districts.
There \vas a request that the developer commitlllent be added that the Developer or its successor will not
request a sound wall/harrier f()J' the devcl()pnlellt \vhcl1 the adjacent public n)ads are expanded.
Tract lines are not shown on the master plan to separate theMU and Residential boundaries.
The FAR (11001' area ratio) needs to revised on the commercial table to be ;] "maximum" rathcr than a
minimulll (PUn doclllllent. page,s)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
4.
10.
11.
12.
,\ "I,,,.;j~,.,,I;.,,, ,,,,,.,,,1.-, In 1...,~ 0,."1,, In ,'n,~I".,,, .'...."I...I;,~ ,.;...1,1.. n( ".",.... "..;11, ""Jro.",t.. ,,,;th;n th..... nrr.;p"f" c<r.
.. """",,,,,,,,,,, ""',,~,,' '" "'- """-." '" '''t'''''..... /-'...",,, "t-"'"' '" "": "'''' .,,,,,,-L,' ..,,,,,.. ..." t-"'-'J""" '-'~.'
13.
14.
that the scntence reads "Buildings shall primarily hOllt streets ,,"'ithin the developmellt in order to create
a sense orplace and relationship tn tile strect. "(PUD document. pages 7 & 9)
To\vnllouse is !lot listed as '-I pLTllliltcd llse in the t'vlU, although it appears lo be contemplated.
/\ requl'st was made hy..' a ('Ollllllissioll 1l1elllher to rell10vc the developer commitment that the RAe
approve tlie first sitc develnpmclIl plall or lillal plat/collstructinll plalls (PUn document. page] 5, hem
(,)
The master pbn docs not show the hreak-up of buildings as ShOWll on the visual aide at the Planning
Commission hearing.
Is there (\ connict \vith the arl(lHlahlL' housing requirements of the Subdistrict, (iMP Policy 1.4 of
Ilousing Flement and FS lh)..3177(())(nl.g.? (This relates to concentration or afl(lrdab1c lwusing in
cerl,lill areas urlhe ('nunt).)
Is there surllciellt dctail ill the devclopl.'r cOlllmilnlellt t(1 enter illto a future aft()J'dable housing
,lgreCIlll'llt? (PLil) Doeulllent. page ]4).
Add 5.000 s'luarc I\mtlimitatioll tn Ret<lill'vlisccll<lllcnus (Itcm xxvii nr MU pennitted uses) to conl'lrIn
to allo\vahle commcrcial L1ses at dale oJ',-ldoptioll oCthe SubdistricL (PUD document. p;:lge 3)
Recreational St<lndards are nut provided in the MU Ilistrict. Add recrcational standards in the MU table
iCrecreational uses will he located in the MU District.
Change Romi.ln numerals to Arabic numhers.
Consider adding a provision that no PUD amendment would be required to remove the affordable
housing requircmcllt rrOnl the /.lllling ordinance if the CiJ\..'lP is amended in the future to remove the
arl(1rdable housing requirement J'nHl1 this Subdistrict.
There W;:lS discussion that the Amusement "=- ReCrC<l11011 Services ((Jroup 7911) should he removed as a
permitted use ill the !\1U District.
A decision needs to be m,H.lc '-IS to \vhclher this petition needs to return to the cepe as part of site
de\'"clopment pl,-1ll ,lpproval process.
15.
16.
17.
I K.
I~.
211.
21.
n
23.
Page 1 of I
Agenda Item No, 8A
A~~N~4'E~94910
Page 18 of 407
C';oWier COH.nty
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLJER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
]JI':PARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVEl.OPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPlvlENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: MAY 7,2009
SUBJECT:
PUDZ-2004-AR-G829; DAVIS RESERVE MPUD
PROPERTY OWNI~R/AGENT:
Owncl': Barry Goldmeier. President
Collier Davis l.l.C
250 Catalonia Ave. Suite 702
Coral Gables. 1'1, 33134
Agcnt(s): Robert Andrea
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.
310G South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Fl. 34104
REOlJESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of
the subjcct sitc l1'om the Estates (E) zoning district to thc Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) zoning district It))' a project to be known as the Davis Reserve MPUD and approve an
AJ"](mlable Ilousing Density Bonus Agreement (AllDllA),
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject PUD. consisting oC22.83 aercs, is located inlhc southeast quadrant of the intersection
of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and County Barn Road. in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26
hlsl. Collier County, l'lorida. (,)'ce /omliollllli/fi olljiJ/IrJll'illj', fii/ge)
j'URPOSE/J)ESCIUPTlON OF PROJECT:
The petitioner proposed a mixed-use development that will consist of a maximum of 286 dwelling
units and a maximum 01' 35,000 square lCel of commercial/orticc uses. An AtTordable [lousing
Density Bonus Agreement is proposed J(lr this development that will set aside 20 percent (57
dwelling units) of the units as worklt)rcc huusing units lor a total bonus density of 5.0 dwelling
units per acre, This \Villrcsult in a tota[ project dcnsity of 12.5 units per acre.
The subject property is undcveloped at this timc, and, according to the petitioner's Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), it is eumprised of approximately 2IJ acres of upland vegctation and three
acres of \Vetlaml vegetation. No deviations lium Land Development Code (L])C) arc being sought
as part or Ihis rezone pelition.
PUDZ-2004-^I~-6829I)avis Reserve MrUD
May 7, 2009 eere
Rev: 4/28/09
10agel of 24
d
~
~
.. '"
,
"
..
,
c-_:'::'T':j'"''''7"
I! /
1/ /
J /
'\ /11
, )
.\ / II
\ t,t'l
.\ /)1 F:
\ \ \ \ -,,;1" \,( ).'"
'II 1\] ;'I"'I/IJfIJlj- ,
,/1 \!/ ~
\:; 5 ( ; )
1;'1 I 111
~y
ug
~~
. ,
i> I
lll-- I
1-- ~i
flJ(j
"
.,
'.,,' 'l",'
1
I.
~ It
I'
. _--..1
"
Ii
(,) \
\Iil,.il
'f! I,
",,\
)
\\\ ;
\ ~
1;\ .
',,,r.o,, <"." ",.1,,,,.,-"1
1.'.."1 1",,"1 ,n""'J
~.
,
i1
.
1::
103
II
,
,
,
I
I
I
,
,
'~""""'"""";"""'_'"",,~J'I"I1"..."..,
----- -~~--='::::."..:
I /"'----/
~
1,,-
J".";OIIUl I .,
-'-'''.'f -"--Ar.:---
'i!! /. t:l,'1
~; ~?
I ""'.'
i, ,J;
,"'//
~1;:::/ ~
~;~:,' \ B
)',1
~ ir~
J' 1 ,i I~!!I . "__1
J';1;~J!L~:::_~!_JU::l.J ...._,...
I'!
-(
['J, (.
()
., -. 1~)1D
iir,..;,;,yy,l'-n"i.')
~~
~'i
.,\!
V
t:f
HI
f:~ I
u "
H
I ~~
111\
'I
",'
.j;
/
,
I':i
I
! 'I.
1'>\18
I! "d~
id-
I
1,1/
"I I
t I
01
I
,
1;:7;
1/-
~~
-~)):;
1///
'-.'//
(,\./
<~.;;.:>/
.-P
,/
I
I
I ',.
"
..
I
~
~
~~
~~--
~
"
.__f/
"
\
/
" .. /7
0: ' '/
'-/"
;:'/ ,,~ ~
111 ,;c il..
//_1 .
/'_/ - l r- --.-
\-!
t
~; ~
I-I ~
~
~ "-
l
O.
3 ~
~ ~
,
a..
<(
::;;E
<.9
Z
Z
o
f"
m
N
ro
<0
,
0:
<(
'"
o
,.
01
::l
~~I
61
,..
,--
ill
lL
0_
<{
"'~
"'"
z
o
I-
<(
U
o
-l
,;::,;~Jf~~jr"," :~ ~",.,,,,- ..
I ~..,,,.,.,.,,,,,;,, :;;,". Old30IIO' OOd
I I' . JSO 0lX1"
I I 1^~3S]l:l
, , SIAVO
"
i)'
I: !
: !
: :
Ii
:I~
: I, ::>:.:-:
ii t:<:':':'
I II ,',', '
.iJ._.Ji>S:O<)\)
I ...,""'!'''''.... :ole''.
, I---:-m-'-':':'" tJ ti ffi
I I rJ _,.... ~-<tl
: I' , 'R "-. .'. ornif
: II ' :. \~.. 0-
: :. "\ .. [v'
,,'~ I ~ ... · .-
'~Ie I,t. ..."., . '" '
';\~: :~. ~" -'.
i~~1 r'~ --- ...\:~~~... ,.........
,"I" ,...... ,
'"' ,'. .,' C
-, , ,..' ~
:;:1 ' ~;.. " (\/15;,_.1
,,,' i ~ i;:.;"/ '~
'" :;:v~:~A~~:. d ,,'
I :...~.,.. " ~i~' -c"''\.~~.~i'>
" ..~ .l(" '$t'~S<< .",
, .~_...,., :U' /.+.' .>, <':'' <"
,= .' \
I ,= 'l0~ .,
ilj:= :' 'j
,,'~ ~,\:O7: .: :
. J I' "'hi"''"'.' ,',I
~_.~ I' rt: I
'11'[
:n: I
:1:J:1
,.,,:',]'
: :.:, ,)",
:~~ :'J"
'n' ----- '
,<n' __'c_____:-
,i~:fl;....~"',;;.,"",;..;",,:,:- :
om' .....,
}:!:i I '"
....--0' 'j!' ." III ([)' ""
...'" . m' 0 ~':
,,",,"MI>- ':1 .,"! 0 u,
....._ ~no -cfi.'.in...-.--~;J.! 11.,1..),1 ~ -<
I';C ""..~!IIl' ,,"',-- ~ '"
'c. ffi d'" ~AI1-; ~I ~" i," n" ~
.., ,., . {L,U' " -
"I ' .Jalr)[~:;:'" '!:~~""
III 1 ~I~ie:;t (~o~ ~
I - - M I ~ eX:::" Ui~~
- - .,1 ""'0 g
!>m\
Iml.
I!!
~~d:~WKain~fi:~
,".
'1'U:l .,,;:: :r~"l"""\j
=:~..=Jll
<:{~a:7l d\+1? "0I,'15((;J
------z~-
,-
,~
<)~m
":1
'-:1
,~
.. <,'.':':
"<::,
," ,
~;'
','lUlU "
< \n ~ '
::~(r) ::>"
,0
"'
" ,
. ",',.
., ,',
~
.,. '
,'" "
::::::::::
- ,;..'
-: "
," :
I'
,.I
:~
2
"
'"
'"
f.!
i::
:n
"
<
,.
'"
~
o
cl
:: j
~~~
.,,'"
;~~~
~~~~
",0,""
\t:i ~~:::i
d ~ ",/i!""'"
~ ~ ~~~~
~ , ~ ~ ~~~~
H :0['1"0":'><
!'j.
,,,j
,,""
".;-If
~~j~
~.. ~:
"
';t~~~ ~
~ f;~ ~
_ "!O;., ~;
"
.~ III
~j IJ\
~~
,\,,'
-,~;.
:--;-",
L~_
I
-1--
--
i
/',-
" ./<;;;;~ /' ,.,>--'//",
. (iV{)~_-'~ .
~1 l,jZ:::!v'(d
),jl,!(\07' /~::--
j _ ....,==---.--:-:';.."/'
'-~ '~~~<~-.c.;.''. -s::-~
.. -..-, _.-'~
II ~
i
I
r'
,
,
I
, <I
"
""'J
'. '
~
~,
~
~
iJ;
5
',:1
-:J
I
, <I
1
, '"
' ,
" ,
":'1
"
c,
c'
,
,
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 21 of 407
SURROllNDlNGJ"AND USE AND ZONINC;:
North: Davis Boulevard. then the Tcrraeina (lrande, a Illulti.story Assisted Living Facility that is
part of the (lIen Eagle developlllcnl. with a /,oning designation of pun (Bretonne Park
PUD)
Fast: Seacrest School, with a zoning designation of CI:PUD (Seacresl Upper and Lower School
CFPUD)
South: Seacrcsl School. with a /oning designation or CI'PLJD (Scacrcsl Upper and Lower School
(TpUI)) and thc l!crean Baptist Church. with a zoning designation of Estates
\Vcst:
County Barn Road. then the Napoli Condominiums, \lith a zoning designation of RlvlF-
6(4)
..c ~'. -.,', -~_":,::':'_ \\.{\~ ~".J,,'
'I.'-_",:,r;",."'r ~~"'\:"~.', ~";'
.""'I'tIllfJ;'):r ,,~. \, 1_', ,'" f,'
;"'t;""'~'I"""'.'" '
,\,.., """
(. .",.. '
. Jf." ',~ -, .
L ,.t~:.l:,~.v;;r' If!
"~<~~
>~~,'rJ~,'l~ill..
;~~~' ..~'I..Jt,:'
~~:.;." ,~r.;..... __
. -;:, t . I..-\~, '.' ".. ,.~,,;;., "
.' 'li!lli~'~'-"'l{''-'''' v~
t'l: . J;:"1.ioi, ~ .~. i . ~ \
,f .c,l.l~ ~,,:~-~~,,;: _- J~"';"';"";'
"- =-..-.-....=. "....
~ --'-',,-,;.,::::.:....;:0:..:- ~~-.; _::~\:'~" :.J :-=~c::-.,...-----,-'~~~
Aerial Photo
GROWTH i\IAj'ii\(;EMENT PLAN (GMp) CONSISTENCY:
FlIllln, Land {Is" Eklll"nl (FLUE): lhe following inf()!'Jnation regarding the FLlJfvl consistency
was provided by ('ol1lprcbcnsive ['Janning lleparll1lent stalTin a memo dated April 12.2009.
The subjl'Ct property lies wilhin the Urban land use designation ,lrea. It has also been designated
within its own localion-specilic Subdislrict within the lIrb;I1l-Mixed-Use District since .Iune 7,
:J.OO:i - the Davis I\olllcvmd/('ollnty Ham Roml Mixed..lIsc Subdistrict.
PUDZ-2OCH-Af~-G[J;29 Uavis f<csorvc MPl.J1)
May 7, 2009 CCI'C
l~ev: ~/28/09
r"lI0 2 01 2~
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 22 of 407
FLUE provisions state that, "this Subdistrict provides j()J' development that incorporates traditional
neighborhood and mixed-use ncighborhood design features, as well as recommendations of the
Community Character Plan (CCP). These design reatures include: pedestrian-Ji-iendly and bieycle-
rriendly streets; a park, small plazas and other open spaces; and, a mix of residential and
neighborhood commercial uscs. Integration of residential and commercial uses in the same
building is encouragcd"
These Subdistrict requircmcnts go on to state, "The commercial component shall be interconnected
with the residential component, and the commercial component shall be conveniently located to
serve rcsidents in the nearby surrounding area. Pedestrian and bicyclc access will be provided so
as to alTord acccss liOln ncigllboring communities to the commcrcial uses, residential
neighborhood(s), and open spaces and paths within the Subdistrict".
Two distinctly dilTercnt areas, tracts, or "componcnts" -- the Commercial component, and the
Residential component- make up this Subdistrict and distinctly ditlcrent provisions govern the
dcvelopment of each. Comprehensive Planning stalT has assessed the proposal at length and
believes the Petitioner's dismissal or and disregard ror certain Subdistrict provisions is inaccurate
and misguided, based on the plain meaning or the Subdistrict provisions - is also an attempt to
distort the af/(,rdable and workforce housing provisions as they relate to density - and thus
inconsistent with the FL.UE. More specifically, stall'reads the Subdistrict provisions for this
Ivlixed-Usc Planncd Unit Development as expressly limiting residential devclopment to 234 units,
resulting in a density or 10.25 units pCI' acrc, based upon a consistent application or the density
bonuses requested. It is proposed that 187 or tbese 234 dwellings would comprise Ihe residential
component, while no less than 47 af"l(mlable and workl(lreC residential units would be located
abovc ground J]oor commercial establishl11cnts in mixed-use buildings.
Threc significant issucs are standing points or disagreement betwecn the Pctitioner's interpretation
and starrs asscssment. as ]()Ilows:
../ Whether thc ovcrall dcnsity is limited because additional dcnsity cannot be derived ],'0111
locating aJl(mlablc-workli,rec housing in thc conllllcrcial part of the PUD, where additional density
is alrcady awarded:
../ Whether density bonuscs can be derived rrOlll af/(mlable-workj()rce housing units that arc
not geographically located in the residential part or the PUll; and
v' Whether density blcnding, as residential dcnsity generated lI'om calculations including the
coml11CJ'cialtracl C<IIl be tnmsferred to the residcntial part of the PU]).
Starr has applied the provisions of thc Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixcd-Use Subdistrict,
as adoptcd. The Petitioner disagrccs with starcs applicatiun or the provisions of this Subdistrict.
In an cm)]"t to change starf's position, the Petitioner asked the County Attorney's Office (CAO) to
provide an opinion rcgarding the Board or County Commissioners' (BCe) intentions based upon
Minutes or BCC deliberation on this Subdistrict, and the pcrtinenl provisions in the Subdistrict.
Aller review and analysis or the rvlinutes and Subdistrict language, the CAO found them to be
inconclusive with respect to thc BCe's intent. The Petitioner then requested that each of these
PUDZ-2004-AF<-6829 Davis l,esorve MPUD
May 7. 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28/09
Page 3 of 24
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 23 of 407
three points of disagrccnlcnt bc rcturned to the ncc to discuss the Commissioners' original intent,
as part of present consideration of the ivlPUD, Slaffbelieves the Subdislricl text aeeuralely reneels
the BCC's action in adopting it.
Policies 7.1 through 7,7 under Objcctive 7 orthc Future l.and Use Elemcnt (FLUl,) were approved
on Oetobcl" 2G. 2004, This Objective and its policies <ldopt cerlain "Smart Growlh" provisions into
the I'UJF.
Sinec the <ldoption of Objective 7 <lnd ils policies, as mclhods to encourage such planning, the
County has gone on to implcment Ihem further. Thc "futurc" land developmcnt regulations were
1(IrI11ulatcd, tben <ldopted as FLU!' provisions for this speei!ie, Davis Boulevard/Coullty Barn Road
11'1 ixed-Use Subdislrict. This fonllulativc process was one of Collier County's earliest
opportunities to ,1pply mOl"c 01' the practices !(Jlmd in the liJlJ'({}'(1 /!el/c/' Places - Ihe COl11l11unify
C '//(f}'{fcfer I'lan},,' ( 'oll;e/' C '()!Infy, Florida, The ('ommunity Char<leter Plan provides the County
with a policy documcnt ICaturin!? the most useful aspects of Traditional Neighborhood Design
(TND). smart growth. tl"ame eahlling, new urbanism and othel" ('ontemporary planning practices.
These policies arc implemented and refel"enccd generally by this mixed-nse Subdistrict's FLUE
proVISions.
These adopled 1'1.1 JI ': provisions require that projects within this Subdistrict comply with the
[(lllowing st,lIldmds and eriteria - and arc rest<Jted here, ""Iowcd by stalT responses speeilie to the
Davis Reserve ivlPUP request.
This Subdistrict cOl11prises approxill1<ltely 2:~,X3 <Jeres alld is Iueated at the southeast eUrIlcr orthe
Davis BDldc\'ard/County !lam IZuad illtersectiun, The intent of the Subdistrict is to provide I()\' a
dcvelopl1lcnt that illcorporales tradiliuml lleighborlHlod and l11ixed-usc neighborhood desigll
/Catmcs. as well '" reClll11lnelld<JtiullS of thc ("oilier County CUl11lnunit)' Character Plan. These
includc: pedestriall..lj'iclldly allll bicycle-frielldly streets; <I parle sl1lall plazas alld other open
spaces: and, a mix u['Il'sidellli,d and Ilcighborhuud cUl11lllelci,d uses, Integration of residential and
C0Il1I11Cl'Cj~lI11scS ill the Sllllle huilding is ellcouraged.
The Clll1ll11ercial eUl11pUllellt shall bc illlerc<lJ1I1ectcd with the residential component, and the
clll11l11crcial eUlllpllncllt shall he clIll\cniclIlly located Iu scne rc'sidents in the ncarby surrounding
all:a, Pedestrian mid bicycle access \\ ill be: prllvidcd SIl ,IS III amml access li'ol11 neighboring
CUl1ll11unitics tll the clll11lncrci,d Ilses. residcllli,ll ncighborhllud(s). alld Ilpen spaces and paths
\\ithin Ihe Subdistrict.
Projects wilhin Ihis Subdistrict shall cUl11ply with tll(' fllllllwiug standards and criteria:
,I. COl11l11elci,d ('t1l1IpOnl'llt
I. Thc elllJll1ll'lcial eOlllpollell1 slltlllli'ollt COUllt)' Uam!Zoad and Davis Boulevard.
2. The ['rolltagc of thc eOl1ll1lcrcial cOl11punent shall bc no greater than twice its depth.
3. The col1ll11ercial COl11pllnent shrdl be no larger 111<111 :i acres in size and shall not exceed
4'i.I)Ol) square kct of I!ross leasable 1100r arCH,
,I, No single conll11ercial use in tbe c01l11nercial component shall exceed] :i,OOO square feet
01" gross leasable 11001' arCH. c.\cepl tbal H !,'rocery store or supennnrket shall not exceed 20,Ol)O
square reet or UJOSS Jcnsahlc !lour ,In..';).
l'UOZ-2004^RG8?D [lavls I1res",ve MPUD f''''1e 4 of 24
May 7, 200(1 CCI'C
Rev 4/28/0D
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 24 of 407
5. Allowable commcreial uses in the commercial component shall be limited to those uses
permitted in the C-l, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts as containcd in the Collier County Land
Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, in dl'ect as 01' the date of adoption of
this Subdistrict (Ordinancc No. 2005-25 adopted on .lunc 27, 20(5).
G. A common architcetural theme shall be used for all commercial buildings.
7. Pedestrian connections shall bc provided belween all buildings.
8. Rcsidcntial oscs arc allowcd and may he localed above commercial uses in the same
building or within an attached building. Residential density within the commercial component
is allowed at 4 dwelling units per acre and shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage in
the Subdistrict.
9. The maximum nom area ratio I'DI' commcreial uses is 0.25.
b. Residential Componcnt
1. Acreage to be used fix calculating residenlial dcnsity in the residential component of thc
Subdistrict is exclusivc of the commcrcial component and of any acreage 1'01' a use with a
residential equivalency, such as an Al.F-Adult Living Facility. Eligible density shall be as
determined by application 01' the Density Rating System.
2. Service roads and alleys shall bc integrated into the residcntial component of the
Subdistrict.
c. (ieneral Critcria
I. Rezoning is cneouragcd to be in the form 01' a PUD.
2. Parking areas shall be intcrnal to the sitc and bc scrccncd from Counly Barn Road and
L)avis Bou!evard,
3. Common stairs, brcczcways or clevators may join individual buildings.
4. Trails and boardwalks may be provided in preservation areas for hiking and educational
purposcs, il' consistcnt with applicable local, state and rederal cnvironmental protcction
regulations.
5. The Subdistrict shall includc a parle small plazas and other types of open space.
G. The number ami type of access points shall be limited, as decmed appropriate during
review of subsequcnt development ordcrs, so as to minimize disruption of trame tlow on
Davis Bonlcvard and Coullty l1all1 Road.
7. Development within thc Subdistrict shall be encouraged to use a grid street system, or
portion thcreoL so as to provide multiple route alternativcs.
8. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access to the Subdistrict shall be provided.
C). A vehicular interconnection shall be provided between the residential and commercial
components of the Subdistrict.
] O. Bolh pcdestriall ami bicyele illlerconnections shall be provided between the residential
ami conlmercial components oj" the Subdistrict.
II. ^ minimum 01' 91 lesidentialunits shall bc dcveloped in the Subdistrict (this retlects the
Density Rating System's base density oj" IClllr dwelling ullits per acre, applicd to the total site
acreage). For the project's total dcnsity - whether it is the minimum 01'91 dwelling units, or a
greater amount as allowed by thc Dcnsity Rating System density bonus provisions and
approved via rezoning - a minimum oj" len percent (10 pcrcent) must be aITordable-workJ{lrce
housing units provided Illr those eaming less than or equal to 80 percent of the median
bousehold income Illl' Collier County mld another minimum of ten percent (10 percent) must
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis r~eserve MPUD
May 7,2009 CCI'C
I,ev: 4/28/09
Page 5 of 24
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 25 of 407
be alrordable-workj()rce bousing onits provided I(ll' those earning greater than 80 percent, but
IlO greatcr thall 100 percent. of the median housebold income Illl' Collier County.
12. lbc rezone ordinallce implementing this Subdistrict shall set 1(1l'tb a provision to insure
construction of tbis minimum llumber of dwelling units. and type of units. sucb as a cap on the
commerciallloor arca that may be issued a ccrtilieate of occupancy prior to construction oftbe
mininlllm Illllnber. 'lIld type, of residential units.
Tbe Residentinl Component provisions J()l' this Subdistrict state, "Acreage to be used for
calculating rcsidcntial density in tbe residential component of tbe Subdistrict is exclusive of tbe
commercial componcnt ami of any acrcagc I()r a use witb '1 rcsidential equivalency, such as an
I\dult Living I'm:ility (AU). Lligiblc dcnsity sball be as determined by application o!'the Density
I{ating Systelll," Ihis crilcrion is not IllCt in Pctitioner's (iMP Analysis. Staff provides the
followillg una lysis:
Under thc I;LU E Dcnsity Rating System and specific Subdistrict provisions, the subject property
qualilics Il)r a m<l\illllllll 01'234 dwelling units (.1 0.25 DlIIA); 28(i DUs are requested (12.5 DU/A).
lhe Density Rating System analysis I()l' the proposcd Davis Reserve project is as f(lllows:
'-I DU/A ,,-,' L3asc Density \llsil1g 17.83 residcllli,d <llTC<;)
.1 Dil/A -- PI'().\illJilY to rvlixl'd-lJsc Activity ('elller (using 17.H3 residelltiulllcrcS)--
LJ ?l1l-^--=-.l\_~c(;;;~! Q ~_(lr_Lll~)]'~ (,'{) llcctorl(\'")<H!?_(Vsjl)JL LZ,_~Jyc~idelll ia! ,H.:rcs)
Subtotal '\\\';mlcd hy I )cnsity IZatillg S!'SIClll
71..12 units
53.49 units
__ .... _ _ __._.__17.83 units
]/12.6rlunits
~J2JH1\ i\'lL0i,:sJJ)~5.'J,,'_{!n!lml~llU)Jo:nsiL\' _A IJtl\V,_llWC Lll_5iJ!g_22. 83 u.ues g!J~5J____
Total residential Ullih ;dlo\\'cd -~ 2.13.96 (rolllldeclllp)
91.32 units
234 units
. ,'" .' " ,,', It' " . " ," .' ],,,,,, .' ,", . I.'
1\1 WI (la[)le ,UIU '....UI I, lur LC I I\lU"H11~ \ IIlll" I\Cqllll ell \ ~u PL"llTIIl ur lUtill IJ
'"
't, UlllI~
The Davis Boulevard/Coullty !larn Road Ivlixcd-lJsc Subdistrict clearly expresses the provision,
o'Rcsidellti,d dcnsity ill tilc residenlial C()llljlOllent is exelusi\'e of the commercial component..."
Stair advises the ('CI'C dllll B("(' tll lOllnsider tlwt residcnti,d densit)' Ilot located in the residential
compollent is not allowed at the sallle density--as the adopted Subdistrict language is undisputable,
as set forth abo\'e. Iherel(lI'l' stall's opillion is the applicant's proposed density is inconsistent with
the CiIvlP.
fll this Subdistrict, density is awa!'ded I()j' pmviding mixcd uses in the commcreial component, not
[prill",!'ily[ 1(". pmviding aniirdablc-wllrklim:e housing. As a cllndition of awarding this density.
an all1llunt lli" ammli1ble-workforcco Ilousing is required. It clluld be vicwed that awarding this
density fur mixed use p!'llvides reasonahle compensation I()r requiring afl(lrclable-\Vorkrorce
housillg. It 1()llows tll<lt density honuses lo!' providing anill'llable-workl(lrec housing are not
additionally awarded.
Ammlable-\lorkl()ree Ilousing is not relfllire'! in thc residcntial component. so bonuses jill'
pruviding such housing lire available through tile Density Rating Systcm. This Petition however,
docs not prupose to locate an(irdablc-workli)lee housing in the residential component. It follows
then. thalno aj'j(mlahle-workl()ree housinlc-related bonuses would be awarded.
The Petitioner illtends to locate all
('ompllncnt, allll reLjuests that ('ollicl
t'UIJZ-?OO'I-^I'~-6(129 Llavis t,esolvo MPUIJ
May 7, 20m) CCI'C
t,ov 4/2(1/U9
their all(mlable-workl(n'ce housing in thc commercial
County award density bonuses for doing so - in clear
1'<JUe G of 24
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 26 of 407
contradiction to the ineligibility of bonuses through the Density Rating System in the cOlllmercial
area. Moreover. the Petitioner intends to locate only the all<mlable-workforce residential units in
the commercial component, and none of the bonus units. This transfer, or "density blending", also
clearly contradicts density blcnding provisions and Community Character Plan design directions
[encouraging a blend of dcnsities, and a range of housing prices and Iypes, in a "delicate gradient"
11'0111 center to edgel generally. and policies orthis Subdistrict specifically. [emphasis added]
The Commercial Component provisions for this Subdistrict state, "Residential uses are allowed
and may be located above commercial uses in thc same building or within an attached building.
Residential density within the commcrcial component is allowed at 4 dwelling units per acre and
shall be calculated bascd upon the gruss acreage in the Subdistrict"
This critcrion is mct, Stall providcs the fiJlIowing analysis:
4 DU/ A = t'v1ixed-Use Component Al]owance (usiUg 2 f.. 83 gross acres) =
Commcrcial Componcnt residcntialunit calculation = 91.32 (rounde,1 down) =
91.32 units
9] units
This criterion alhms, but does not specifically reqnire, thai thc density generated from the
commercial tract be developed on the commercial tract, though stall believes such a requirement is
imp]ieit, The Petitioner proposes to build 57 residential units on the commercial mixed-use tract
with the balance bcing transferrcd to the residential tract,
The General Criteria pruvisions for this Subdistrict state, "A minimum of 91 residential units shall
be developed in thc Subdistrict (this rellects the Density Rating System's base density of foUl'
dwelling units pcr acre, applicd to thc total sitc acreage). For the project's total density - whcther it
is the minimum of <) I dwelling units. or a greater amount as allowcd by the Density Rating System
density honus provisions and approvcd via re7,oning - a minimum of tcn perccnt (l0 percent) must
he affordable housing units and another minimum oC ten pcrccnt (10 percent) must be workforcc
housing units" This speci lie provision !<l!" this Subdistrict has bcen updated through EAR-bascd
amendments and now rcads, "/\ minimum of '!1 residential units shall be dcveloped in the
Subdistrict (this reflects the Density Rating System's base density of I<)ur dwelling units per acre,
applied to thc total sitc acrcage). For the project's total dcnsily - whethcr it is the minimum of 91
dwelling units, or a grcater amount as al]owcd by the Density Ratiug System dcnsity bonus
provisions and approvcd via rezuning - a minimllm of tcn pcrccnt (] 0 perceut) must he affcmlable-
wor]dclrce housing units ]llilvided lQ!:J))OS,_~Lll)jng l"s~JIHlll ~)rcgllal tll 80 perccnt of the mcdian
Il()tbS.CjJulcLjn<:<CllllcJCll'i'ollicr CUllnt\' and anothcr minimum of ten perccnt (10 pcrcent) must be
alTordahle-work tClrec housing units Pxovi\fc\LJCll', those earnin(" (,Teatcr than 80 11erccnt. but no
grcatcr tlmn 100 pen:cnl. of thc mcdian hOllsel}()kLiI1.comc fClL-rollicr Count\'." [EAR-based
amendll1ents are nndalined.f
Ihis criterion .- in either 1<)["In n is not met. The anlmlab]e housing dcnsity bUI1II.\' does not apply,
as the alTonlablc honsing provision JCll' this Subdistrict is a l'eljnil'ement - that 20 percent of thc
total residential unit count he composed of 10 perecnt anlmlable and 10 pcrcent workforce housing
units. Furthcr, aJ"lcmlab]e or workfclree housing units are not proposed to be located in the
rcsidential component of the tvll'\ II l.
PUDZ-2004-^R-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7. ;'009 ccpe
I'.ev: 4/28109
Page 7 of 24
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 27 of 407
COlllmercial component residential unit calculation cc l) 1.32 (rounded down) =
Resid~.ntial Component residentijlLunit calculation ~, 142.64 (rounded upl =
fvlaxilllul1lnnmber of residential units allowed =
91 units
. 143 units
234
This dmsit)' calculation limits development to I n.25 dwelling units per aere - 2.25 c1u/ac fewer
tban the density proposed by the Petitioner.
i\ITordable and Workforce Housing Units Reqnired (20 percent of total)J = 47
The Davis Reserve 1'1 JDI proposal is consistent with the amount of alTordable-workforee housing
units being provided only, not with the interpretation of how af"/(mlable-I\'orkf()ree housing densit)'
bonuses arc applied. I'elitioner intends to provide ",7 aj](mlabic or workl(lree residences (20
percent of2X6) to achieve a bonus density of('.2X units per acre.
The eieneral Criteria provisions I(lr this Subdistrict state:
The recollc Im!il/(Ij}i:e illl/)leIIjQIIJIJj! Ihis SlIhdislric/ shall seiJ.!lrlh a /)1"01'1.\1011 /0 ills lire
cOIIS//'IIcliOIl oj" Ihis lIIillillllllll IIlIlIIber oj" l!Jrellillg IIl1ils /91 lolal]. alld /ype oj" IIl1ils [9
I/llimll/hle hOllsillg <) lI'wkfim'e 1/OlIsillg]. slIch III' 1/ cap Oil l/ie collllllercialfloor a/"Ca Ihol
11/0)' he isslled a ['I'/'Ii/icule of()cCIlIJiIlICl' IJ/'ior 10 COlI.\l/'IIcliOIl o/lhe lIIillilllllllllllllllbel; olld
Ilpe, ojresidcllli"llIlIils, [Underlining emphasis addedl
Petitioncr intcnds to dcvelop morc residcntialunits than this minimul1l number, but contends that
such a "provision to insure construction of this minimnm" is unnecessary. StalT notes such a
provision is not ciccll\T It IS a rt~Lj.lllLe!JLent ot Ihe Subdistrict.
The proposed I'UIJ Doculllenl lias r"fll"cl'd tile typical Slatcment of Compliance with a "(;MP
I\nalysis",
Not "II rcvisions comply wilh prcvious stall' recommcndations provided in previous review
st"gcs. ('olllprellc\1silc Planning \11<\int"ins its C1SSeSSJllcnt thai tile I'ctitioner's chosen approaeh
is " distorlioll of Ihe ~;ubdistrict dCllsily prl,visions alld illconsistent with the FLUE. The
dwellillg unit l'igure or 2g() provided hy lll~ Pctiliolh.T rdlccts an Incorrect and inaccurate
inlerprel"lion of Subdistrict provisions. IJcnsity bonuses should not be awarded I()]" providing
the required di'Illldahlc or \\ork I(nee !HlllSJllg lIllits. Nor sl10uiti bonuses he awarded where
development alrl'ady takes adl'anlage of other added density spccilic to this Subdistrict -
awarded 1(,1' developillg CI mi\cd-use pro;ecl. Ihis poillt of disagrl'elllent is a policy issue to be
cOllsidcred by thc CCI'( '. \Vilh thl' Ilocmlmaking tile Ilncd decision.
I(evisions as lIeccssmy \Viii hc made to 1'11lJ documents and the i\11(lrdable \Vorkl()]'ce Housing
Density Ilonus /\grcclIlel\t !(lllmving the lICe lkcision on this issue,
Subclislricl provisions rCLjuirc a condition be written that building permits shall not be issued for
mill''' than a limited numbcr of squme reel of conllnercial noor mea prior to issuance of
Ccrtillcates of Occul'aucy I"l' a spccillc nlllnbl~r 01' dwellillg ullits, inclusive of affordable and
rUDZ-2004-^F~-[)n29 Davis I~osclvc MPUD
Mny 'I, 2009 CCI'C
I~cv: 4128/09
Paoe B of 24
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 28 of 407
workl"orec housing. Petitioncr prefers a limitation that is not connected with development of the
projcct's conllnercial component, as all development is proposed to occur in a single phase.
Transportation I~lclllcnt: This projcct can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the
Transportation Elemcnt of Ihc GMP. The impacts to the roadway network have been analyzed
using thc two pcrcent-two percenHhrcc percent signilicanee test, and the projects' signilieant
impacts are lisled below.
Davis Boulevard Impacts: The lirst link of Davis Boulevard thaI is impacted by the project is Link
15, between County Barn and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The project generates 80 PM peak hour,
peak direction trips, whicll reprcscnts a ~;ignilicant impact of 3.11 pcrccnt. This scgment of Davis
Boulevard currcntly has 700 remaining trips, is currently at LOS "0," and is located within the East
Ccntral Transportation Concurrency rvlanagement Area (TCMA) as rel1eeted by the 2008 Draft
Annual Update ami invcntory Rcport (AUIR).
Moving Easterly, the second link of Davis Boulevard that is signil1eantly impactcd is.Link16.1,
fi'Dlll Santa Barbara Boulevard to Radio Road. The project generates 55 PM peak hour, peak
dircction trips, which represents a significant impact of 5.29 percent. This segmel7l of Davis
J]ou!el'ard eIl/Tel1d)' has a deficil of'31J /I'ips, is cUl'I'el1/!)' a/ LOS "F". bu/ is !owled Il'i/hil1/he Easl
Cel1lm! TCA/A as I'ef!ecled bv Ihe 2IJ08 Dmfi A UIR
.. .
The subsequent link on Davis Boulcvard betwecn Radio Road and CR-951, which is currently
hliling but is under agrccment with Florida Department of Transportatiol1 (FDOT) to be expanded in
200t), is not shown to be signilieanlly impacted inlhe project TIS.
Davis Boulevard impacts west of the project that require analysis include Link 14, from County
Barn to Lakewood Iloulevard. The project generalcs 65 I'M peak hour, peak direction trips, which
rcpresents a signilicant impact of 2.67 percent. This segment of Davis Boulevard currently has 662
rcmaining t rips. is currently at LOS "f)", <\\ld is located within the East Central TCMA as reflected
by the 2008 f)ran AUIR.
Continuing Westerly, the subsequent link on Davis Boulevard between Lakewood Boulevard and
Airport-Pulling Road is not shown to be signilieantly impacted in the TIS.
County Barn Impacts: Thc project signil1eantly impacts Link lO, County Barn Road bel ween Davis
Boulevmd and Rattlesnake Hammock. The project generates 120 1'11'1 peak hour, ]lcak direction
trips, which reprcscnts a signilieant impact of 13.95 percent. Ilowever please note, this level of
impact is {(H\\ld only between the project's County llarn driveway and the County Bal'll/Davis
l30nlevard intersection. The link impact un this project is 25 trips, reprcsenting a signilieant impact
01'2.91 pcrcent. This segment of County Barn Roml currently has 41 remaining trips. is currcntly at
LOS "I)". This segment is no/located within the Fast Central TCrvlA as reJlected by the 2008 Draft
i\UlR. The developer has proposcd nlitigation to accommodate the project impacts to this
C0l1currCI1CY segment.
Santa Barbara Impacts: The impact to Santa Barbara Boulevard (North of Davis Boulevard) that
requires analysis is Link 78, between Davis Boulevard and Radio Road. The project gcneratcs 25
PM peak hour, pe,lk direction trips, which represents a signilicant impact of 0.77 percent. This
IOUDZ-200~-Af,.6829 Dov;s r,eserve MF'UD
May 7, 20IJ9 CCloC
l<ev: ~128109
Poge 9 of 24
Agenda Item ~"o. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 29 of 407
segmcnt of Davis Boulevard currcntly has 1.'105 rcmaining trips, is currently at LOS "13", and is
located \\ithin the East CcntrallCMA as relkctcd by the 2008 ])ral\ AUIR,
Thc scgmcnt of Santa Barbara Boule\'ard, South of Davis Boulevard, was not under contract to be
constructed at the timc of the initial review, fllld capacity could not yet be counted for analysis by
this project. I-Iowever, the project construction has begun subsequent to thc submittal of this
pctition, Staff analysis oC the nine I'M Peak 1 lour project trips (total, non-directional) indicate this
project will not have a signilieant impact onthc future Santa Barbara [':xtension (anticipated to havc
a capacity greater than 3.000 trips. I~lr a 0.3 percent or less impact). This road\\ay scgment will not
he located within the East Central TCMA
Rattlesnake Ilannllock Impacts: Subsequcnt links on Rattlesnakc Hammock that required analyses
in aecordanec \\ith the two percenl-two pcrccnt-thrce perccnt signilicanec test are not shown to he
signiljeantly imp~lctcd in the liS.
TCMA-l\nalysis: As notc in exhibit.r oCthe 2008 Dral\ AUm, '10.47 percent of the lane miles in
thc Fast Central Tranic Concurrcncy Ivlanagcment Area [TCMA! are shown to operate at, or above,
thc minimum LOS standmd. /\ minimum 01" 85 percent is required.
Tran~-)portatjol1 i\.'litigatiol1 ~..;t1tisf)'illg Pulicy 5.]: The petitioner has proposed mitigation in the form
of Dcveloper Commitments in thc Pt II) docnment. The proposed mitigation consists of a monetary
contriIl\ltion to Collier County that would I"uud Intelligcnt TrafJic Management System [lTMS]
signalizatjon upgradcs at t\\O intersections located on a horricanc routc within the TCMA. The
developer has also committcd to contrihutc his I'lir share towards intcrsection improvemcnts at
Davis and Santil I1mbara Boulevards. and has agreed that no Ccrlilieatc of Occupancy (CO) shall he
issucd on the project until the substantial completion of Santa Ilmhara Boulevard Extcl1sion !i'0l11
1 )avis to Rattlesnake Ilinnmoek Road. Thc completion of the Santa Ilarbara Extension is
anticipated to result in an increase to i"ailable capacity on County !larn Road.
II" capacity docs not becllml' ilvailablc on COllnty lImn RO~ICI, Transportation Planning staCf has
agreed that the develllper Illay clcct to move J(l\'\vard with CO applications without available
capacity by cither Cllllstrllcting network illlpmvelllents at the intersection or County Barn Road and
I )avis Ilonlcvard. m hy eontrihuting Curtlll'\' additional l111lnies toward ITMS signalization at two
additional intersel.tillns lln I )alis Illlulevard.
COIlSCI'\'atillll alld ('llaslal Mana:~clllcllt [':Iclllclll (CCME): In accordance with Objective 2.1
(d), until the ("ollnty's Watershcd iVliuwgenlellt l'lans arc cllmplcted, all developlllent located within
mcas idcntilied on hgllre I within the C( 'MI': (see the E;\C Stall Re]lort) shall hc evaluatcd to
detel'lnine impacts to uatllral wctlands. IJo\1 ways. or sloughs. The Ohjeetive also states that the
COllnty shall reljuire the applicant to ,,,"id direct impacts to these natural wetlands. nowways, or
sloughs or. whcnnot possihle. to ensure lIn,\' impact is minimized and compensated I"r by providing
till: s<llne (,()\lle) 'nice cal'aeil,\' lost by the direct impact.
The cvalu'ltion prolided in the I':nvironlllental Impact Statemenl WIS) identified three isolated
wetlands witllin the pro.jeet sitc. two. of which will bc preserved as part of a larger contiguous
preserve. The third, due to its size. proxinlity to Davis Boulevard. and location within the project
site, will he directly impacted by dcvelopment as allowcd by Policy 6.2.4. As required by Objective
l'UDZ-200~-Af,-GG2,J Davis I~CSCIV() MI'LJD
May 7, 200l) CCPC
I ~cv ~/::>81[]9
I'age 1 [] at 2~
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 30 of 407
2.1 (I), allncccssnry state and li.:deral environmcntal permits will be required prior to issuance of a
IInal development order.
Objective 2.2. 01" the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP states "All canals,
rivers, and !low ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local
water quality standards".
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specilic and cumulative impacts of
slonnwater runon~ stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does
not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quanlity, and quality of
I"resh water (discharge) to the estuarine system". This project is consistent with the objectives of
policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity 01" water leaving the site
by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak !low
attenuation during storm events.
The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of Ihe Conservation
& Coastallvlanagcment Element, for tbe following reasons:
Twenty-live percent (25 percent) of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on-site and be
protected by a permanent conscrvation casement prohibiting liJrther development. Tbe preservation
01" native vegetation includes canopy, understory and ground cover emphasizing the largest
contiguous area possible.
The applicant is pJ"L)posing to use Ihe preserve area to store treated stormwater when run-off exceeds
one and one-half inches. Tbc proposed preserve area is comprised solely oCjurisdictional wetlands
and uplands with hydric soils. j Iydrological indicators show that seasonal high water levels
occasionally pond approximatcly 12 inches above surJtlce within thc wetlands on sill', and based on
the sitc elevations provided in the ElS, would also inundate the uplands on the property during this
time. Based on soil investigations, typical wct season water level is about 6 to 12 inches below
surlllce. In accordance with Policy (;.1.1 (5) (b), receipt of treated stonnwaler discharge into
preserves is allowed provided such use does not result in adverse impacts to naturally occurring
native vegetation or harm to any listed species. Policy 6.1.1 (5) (b) requires discharge of treated
stonnwntcr to prcserves having wctlands to meet water Cjualit)' standards as set I"orth in Chapter 62-
302 I'.AC. !lascd on the inl()\'\nation by thc applicant. stafT find the project to be consistent with
Policy 6.1.1 (5) (b). Final design of thc projcct will be permitted through the SFWMD when the
projcct comes in I"l' linal developmcnt order.
Habitat management and exotic vegetatiun remuvallmainteIH1l1ce plans arc rClluired at the lime 0["
Sitc Development Plan/construction plan submittal. In accordancc with Policy 6.1.1 (6), the
managcmcnt plan shall inelude mcthuds to address cuntrol and treatment uf invasive exotic species,
lire management. stol"lnwater management, and maintenance oj" permitted ltlcilities. Preserve areas
shnll be required tu Ire maintained li'ee oj" Category I invnsive cxotie plants, as de!ined by the
Flurida Exotic Pcst Plant Council. Prohibited exutic vegetation shall be removed linn the entire
develupment during construction and the site shall bc maintaincd li'ee of prohibited exotics in
perpetuity.
PUDZ-2001-AR6829 Davis I~eselve MPUD
May 7, 2009 CCPC
Rev: 1128/09
Page 11 of 21
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 31 of 407
Liltornl shelf planting meas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site
Deve]opment Phm/construction plan submittal. and will be requircd to mcet the minimum planting
area requirement [lursuantto Policy 6.].7 and the I.DC.
Jurisdictional wetlands have been identitied as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to
Policy 6.2.4, the ('ounty shall require appropriate agcney permits prior to the issuance of a final
local dcvelopment order permitting site imprO\'clncnts (Site Development Plan/construction plans).
As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4. where pcrmits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for
impacts to wetlands within the Urban Dcsignated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this
shall be dcemed to Ineet the objeetive of protcction and conservation of wetlands and the natural
runctions of wetlands within this area. except (i,l' wetlands that mc part or a Watershed Management
Plan preserve area.
]n accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas me idcntiJied on the PUD master plan.
Allowable uscs within the preserve al'eas mc included in the PUD document. Uses within preserve
meas shall not include an)' activity detl'ilnental to drainage, Ilood control, watcr conservation,
erosion control. or lish and wild] ife conservation and preservation.
Wi]dlife sUl'veys lill' listed species in aecOl'danee with Policy 7.1.2 are included in the
Environmental Impact Statemenl (EIS). Wildlile habitat management plans for listed species are
required at the time oj' Site Development Plan/construction plan submittal, where applicable. No
listed wildlile species have been identilled Oil the project sile.
The requiremcnt J,"' an I:nl'irolllllellta] Impact Statement (E]S) pursll<lIlt to Policy 6.].8 has been
;;atisfiecl. The EllI'il'onmcntal Review stair has also deemed this petition consistent with the CCME.
GMI' Conclw;ion:
The GiVlI' is tile pl'l'I'Clilin,~ doclllllcnt to sllPpmtland lIse decisions sueh as this proposed rezoning
to IvIPUl). Stair is required to Imlke a recolnmendatiull I'egarding a finding oJ' consistency or
inconsistency with tire uvendl (IMI' as pail 01' the recommcndalion li,l' approval. approval with
conditions, or dcni,d 01' 'lilY I'CI.oning petition. 1\ lindint~ oj' eOllsisteney with the FLUE and FLlHvl
clc;;ignations is a Ilortioll or tile (}\u:dl t'illlling tlJ:lt is rcquil'ed. ami starf believes the pctitioll is
illconsistent with tile I:UIM and till' 1.1.111.: as indicated previollsly illthc (iMP discussion regarding
density. Ihe proposed I'C~Olle is eonsistellt with ti,e (iMP Transportation Elemcnt as previously
disclIssed. !'.II\'II'(lllmelltal stall IS rl'Colllln'clldlng tlJ:lt tile petitiull be j'ound consistent with the
('("iVl L Iltl\IClu. witil CUlnpl'ehcnsil'c !'!:II111iIlLC stalT's I'eeolnlllcndatioll that the petilion be ji)lllld
illeollsislent with the 1:I.UM/!'I.Ul':. lOlling stair eallnut sllppmt the pctition unless the Bee makes
a policy decision deterlllining that density prO\ isions shonld be illtel'preted ill compliance with the
petitioner's contentiolls. ~Llr~rc:j()rc, ~ollillgst'llr t:c_c_lmnnclj(ls that the pctition be ]ound inconsistent
wilh Jl1e()\'cr:t11J)1IJ1'~l!LCl's1he_W '_l_'~'t<JllJlls__UJ)ul icv_lcldccm the density calculations provided by
lllcJ"'-tiJillllS'rrIIc:cu]Eio;t~L1Ulsc\\ithin(he(il\U' sIIJ)(listricl. or the \JetitionCl~_I:ClLlI~" the Q,,!!~jlLil!
"Q)lllilim!~c:_\\itJlll1i: illterj)rclati'ln pnlvisle(L1)y-r(~]1prcllCI1Sivc l'!arlllinl! stair.
ANALYSIS:
Starr completed a comprehensive evaluatiun u1' this lane! IIse pctilion and the criteria on which a
l"UIJZ-2004-AI{-(j829 Dov;, Reselve MPUD
May 7. 2009 CCI"C
Rev: 4/28/09
[")age -12 of 24
Agenda Ilem No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 32 of 407
determination must be based. These criteria arc specifically noted iu LOC (LOC) Sections 10.02.13
and lO.02.13.B.S. The stalI evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations
of stalT. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis for
the reeonHllcllllation to thc Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to
support their actiou on thc re/.oning request. These evaluations are provided as part of the Zoning
Review listed below.
El1l'iml1l11el1!a! Rel'iell': Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petItIon and the PUO
documents to address any environmental concel'lls. This petition was required to submit an
Environment Impact Statement (EIS) and was heard by the Environmenlal Advisory Commission
(EAC) on February 4. 2009. A copy of Ihe EAC stair report is included in the back up material.
Please refer to that documentior environmental review details.
Ti'arl.l'jJor/aliol1 Rel'iell~ Transportation Department Stall has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the Ofvl!' and the LDe. The PUD documcnt contains numcrous transportation commitments
that thc petitioner and Transportation Planning stail has agreed uJlon to rcach a point wherein
Transportation Planning stall can recommend approval of this project. Some of the commitments
me listed below:
IJ>- if capacity docs not become available on County Barn Road, Transportation Planning staII
has agreed that I he developer may elect to move forward with CcrliJicate of Occupancy
applications without available capacity by cither constructing network improvements at the
intersect ion of County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard, or by contributing further additional
monies toward lT1vlS signalization at two additional intersections on Davis Boulevard.
I'" Paymcnt in lieu it". sidewalks and bike lanes [or County Barn Road linltage shall be
required.
"'" Fair share contribution towards tbe intersection improvements at Santa Barbara Boulevard
and Davis Boulevard.
Re1Cr to PUD r:xbibit E.I l()r tbe rulllist or Transportation commitments.
U/i!irl' f(Cl'iClI" lhe Utilities Dcpartmcnt Stall" has reviewed the petition and notes the following:
The Statcment of Utility Provisions was been included as required. This project is located within the
Collicr ('ouuty Water-Scwer District boundary, and it will be subjcet to application for and
conditions associated with a Water and Sewer availability letter ii'om the Collier Counly Utilities
Division. Service information: i\ l6-ineh water main exists on both Davis Boulevard and County
Barn l~oad that can provide potable water to the project; also a 24-ineh force main exists on both
Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road.
L':II!CLXCnC;J,-MU!]!J),:!!I/ICIJLJ{l!JjC11" Lmergency Management staff indicated that they bave no
concerns or Ilutstanding issues with this project.
]'o/'ks o/ld Recreu/io/l IICl'iClI': Parks and Recreation staff requestcd in 2005 rcview comments that
tbe developcr provide a Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Amcriean Sociely ior
Testing ami Materials (i\ST1v1) certilied commercial grade playground designed for 2-12 year old
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 DaVIS I~osorvo MPLJD
May 7. 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28109
l"agel3 of 24
Agenda Item No SA
December 14, 2010
Page 33 of 407
children for nse of residents and their guests that should be loeated within a project common area.
Parks and Recreation staff askcd that the playground area be operational before the issuance of any
ccrti licates of occupancy Itlr any residential units, The developer has opted not to provide this
playground. This issuc has ariscn in at least une other plID rezoning, i.e., Cirrus Pointe IU'UD. In
that petition the petitioner objected to the stipnlation noting that the playground was not an LDC
mandated requirement.
LI()Jlsjll1LRel'icr~ In a lettcr dated December 21. 200} (a copy of this letter is included in the
application material). thc applicant is requcsting a waivcr of all impact lees, excluding Road Impact
Fees. The County docs not currently offcr this incentive. The petitioner's suggests the County
waive $5.0X4,'J'i'J in impaet J"ces 1(". this pm.iect. The AfI(mlable-Workforce Ilousing Trust fund
does not have suJ"Jlcient I'unds to COVl'l' this request. I\dditionally, it is not possible to predict the
Hlllount of funds available 1(,,' future deferrals under the current program. Staff does not support this
impact ICe waiver request. Ilowever this issue will bc addressed by the nec as a separate agenda
item in thc fulure using the process whcrcin such matters arc dceided: this is not a zoning issue to be
addressed <IS part of thc current rCZllnc propos"L'
The petitioner's AIIIlBi\. as discnssed in the C1MI' scction proposed to provide 57 affordable
workJilrce housing units Ji,l' <I bonus density or 2.2X units per acre,
7.ollim; }(el'ij;>,r. Stall has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities ami/or densities; the
development standards such as building heights, setbacks. Iandscapc buners; building mass;
building location <lnd orientation: thc amount and type or open sp<lce and its location; and traffic
gencration/attraction of the proposed uses. The total amount of allowable commercial square
J()ulage, .1:i.OOl! square lCd, is in CDmpli<lnee \lith the limilcltions or the Davis Iloulevard/County
Ham IZo<ld IVlixed-11se Subdislrict. i\ miuimum 11001' are<l or (,00 square lCet is proposed I(Jr Ihe
townhome and mulli-Ellllily L1nits. \\'itb thc !i'ont and sidc yard setbacks to be measured 1i'0I11 either
extemal rights-ul~\\'<lY or 1'\ JIl buund<lries ;\S appropriatc. i\ live-J()()t rear setb<lck is proposed for
all building typcs. /\ctual residcllli;1I. mixed L1SC and cunllnercial building heights are not to exceed
(,5 lCel \\'ith/oned heigbtnot to exceed ';:) Icet.
J.DC Subscetiun I (Un.os.l.? states. "\Vhen pertainillg to the rezoning of land. the report and
recOlllmellll<llions to the planning commissiontu thc I\o;ud or County Commissioncrs,..shall show
that the planniug cOllllllission Ims studied and considercd proposed ehange in relation to tbe
!()llo\\'ing \\'hen applicable." I\dditionally. Section 10.112.1:J ul'the ('oilier County LDC requires the
1'Ianniug ('unllllission to make lillllings as to thc 1'1I1l Master Plans' compliance with the additional
criteria as ;1Iso nuted belem: I<ezunc lindings arc designated as RZ and I'U!) lindillgs are
designalcd as 1'(11). 1 Stairs respunses to tl,esl' criteria arc p1'll\'ided in nOll-italici/ed JiJllt I:
Re::ol/t' j;i}u!illgS:
/. Whelher Ihe P""I)(Jsed ch"lI,!!.e lrill he ('(IIISf.llelll \Iilh Ih" goul.\'. uhjeclives. and l'ulicies and
.filllll'" lalld 11.1(' II/a!) "lid /h" "!"lI/enl.I' ofth" (;M!'.
As noted in tire (;1\11' Consistency purtiun ul' this repurl. the projlosed uses and development
standards would generally further tire guals and ubjectives of the FLlIE and the applicable portions
or tire CCML and the Transportation Element. Ilowe\'el'. Cumprehensive Planning staff and the
applicant do nut agree ujlon how density slronld be cillcnlalcd I()r this project. Unless the applicant
PUDZ-20D-1-!\R-G829 DaVIS ReseJve MPUD
May 7,2009 CCI'C
Ilev: 4/28109
I'a()p. 14 of 24
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 34 of 407
reduces the dcnsity to be congruous with tlle interpretation of Comprehensive Planning slaff or the
BCC makes a finding in support of the petitioner's interpretation, staff could not otTer a
recommendation of GMP consistency I{)r this project.
2. 1/1e existi11g la11d use ]}(II/ern.
As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the neighborhood's
existing land use pattern is characterized by Davis Boulevard to the north then the Terraeina
Grande, a residential complex that is part of the Glen Eagle development, with a PUD zoning
designation; to the east is Seacrest School with a zoning designation of CFPUD; the school also
shares a portion of the southern boundary with this project. The remainder of the southern boundary
is shared with the Berean Baptist Church with a zoning designation of Estates. To the west is
County Barn Road then the Napoli Condominiums with a zoning designation of RMF-6(4). The
uses and development standards proposed should be compatible with the surrounding area
especially since the nearby residential uses are separated by major roadways-County Barn Road
amI Davis Boulevard; stalT is of the opinion that this project can be deemed consistent with GMP
FLUE Policy 5.4.
3. The possible crea/io11 o(a11 isolaled dislriclu11/'1daled 10 adjacel1l a11d 11earby dislricts.
The proposed rezoning would not create an isolated zoning district because the proposed rezone is
consistent with the GMP Subdistrict that was adopted specifically for this tract of land for the uses
proposed. however the density issue must be resolved by the BCC to ensure that a more intense
project is not allowed via rezoning than what the BCC anticipated during the GMP amendment
process I{)r this site. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was ll1lly aired to the public as required
by the LllC at that time.
-I. Whe/ha exisling distric/ boundaries are illogically dl'(/)),]] in rela/ionto existing c011ditions 0/1
I he pl'O]Jerly l'I'o]1OsedtiJ/' chonge.
As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the eXlstll1g district
boundari~s arc logically drawn. The proposed PU!) zoning boundaries follow the properly
ownership houndari~s and ~oincide with the GMP subdistrict boundaries. The location map on
page 2 of the starr report illustrates the perimeter or the outer houndary of the subject parcel.
5. Whe/her clwngcd or changing condilions make Ihe },(/ssage or /he ]J/'O]Josed amendment
17CCCSSal}'.
The proposed change is warranted has~d upon the relatively recently created Subdistrict designation
lor the suhje~t properly. The proposed rezoning brings the subject property into compliance with
that designation because it establishes the bufkring requirements associated with the zoning of the
tract and esl<lblishes thc uses contemplated in that Suhdistriet.
Ii. Whether /hc proposcd ('hanlie I)'ill (/(11'(')"sely inflnence !iving ('onditiollS in the neighborhood.
The County's land use policies that are reJlccted by the Future Land Use Element (FI,UE) of the
GMP support the approv,!1 or the uses proposed at this location. StatT is of the opinion that the
PUDZ-2004-AF~-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28/09
Page 150124
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 35 of 407
proposed rezone is consistent with the ('ounty's land use policies that are reneeted by the Future
I.and Use Element (FUlL) of the Glvll' il' a policy decision is rendered by the Bee to support the
proposed density or the petitioner revises the proposed density to be consistent with statTs
interpretation, i\lso, the 1'111) document provides assurances that the site improvements will
include adeqtwte landscaping, setbacks and bulTering It)r the development. Therefore, staff is of the
opinion that the proposed change will not adversely innuenee living conditions in the neighborhood.
7. Whelher Ihe }imfJosed ehallge 1I'i11 creale OJ' excessil'ely illcJ'ease lraffie congeslion OJ' creale
'YfJe.I' oflmffic deellled incolllfJalih/e Il'ilh SII/TOII/ldillg land uses, because of peak \'oll/lIIes OJ'
fJm/eeled II/WI' of whieul(l/' lraflic. illellldillg aClil'ilY dUJ'ing eOllslmelion phases of Ihe
del'clojJ//wlIl. OJ' olhcnrise affiee'l fJublic safi'll',
Ilased upon the Transportation Planning staff review, this project could create or excessively
increase tranlc congestion on Davis Iloulcvard or County flam I(oad; thercfore stafI has
incorporated stipulations in Fxhibit F of thc pun document that mitigate the trafTic impaets..
8, IIhelh"I' 111(' }imfJo,led chonge Il'il/ en'lIle II dminllge pmhlell/,
Appropriate ston11l1'ater management has been provided on the Master Plan to address this issue as
part or the rezone pr()cc~.;s. The propo:-;cd dcvclopmcnl should !lot create drainage or surface v\"atcr
problems because the 1.1lC' spccilieally addresses prerequisite development standards as pm1 or the
local development order process that me designcd to reduce the risk of nooding on nearby
properlies. ^ny proposed w,lter managemcnt and drainage systcm will necd to be designed to
prevent drainage problems on sitc ami bc compatible with the adjacent water management systems.
^dditio\1[dly. the I ,DC' and liMI' havc regulations in place that will cnsure review jtJr drainage on
ncw dnl'lopments.
Y. Whollel' II/(' l'/'(IjJo,\e" chul/ge Il'iII seriously I'edllce lighl IIlId IIiI' 10 IIdjllcelll "I'e"s.
Tlrc PlJ Il document provides allequatc property development regulations to ensure light and air
slrould not be seriously rednel'd to adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the
locations or proposed jlreserve ami open slxlce areas slrould rurtlrcr ensure light and air should not
he seriously reduced to adjac:ent :Ircas, :\dditillnally. roadw,l)'s separate this pmject from adjacent
uses Oil two bllundaries-ullal'is I\oulev,mlto tile nortlr "nd County Ham Road to tile west.
10. IVhel!/('1' II", !)I'ojJused dlllll.';" ml/d" ""I'erse/l' IIlfeell)/'(I!)el'I)' 1'IIIIIeS ill Ihe ""/ucem al'ea.
This is a subjeelil'C dCil'nnillatjoll hased ujllln anticipated results which may bc internal or external
to the subject properly. Property valuation is aClcctcd b)' a host of 1;ICtorS ineluding zoning; however
zoning by itsclr m,IY or may not al'licel values. sincc valne determination is drivcn by market valuc.
Therc is no guarantec that the project \\ill bc marketed ill a manner comparable to tire surrounding
dcvelopllle\lts.
II. 1/helha Ihe J!/'(Il'ose" chlluge Il'ill If(' (/ ""11'1'1'<'111 10 Ihe III/I'/'(I\'ell/el/I 01' del'elol'lI/el/l oj'
(fct/uccur IN'ope!'!.\';ll accordunce 11'jtlt existing regulations.
I'UDZ-200~^RG829 Davis r~"selve MPLJI)
May 7, 2000 CCI 'C
I~ev: ~/28/00
I'age I G of 2~
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 36 of 407
Properties mound this property are already developed as prcviously noted. Thc basic prcmise
underlying all or the dcvelopmcnt standards in Ihc LDC is that sound application, whcn combined
with the site developmcnt plan approval proccss and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable
assurance that a change in zoning will not result in dctcrrcnce to improvemcnt or developmcnt of
adjaccnt property. Thererore, thc proposed 7.Oning changc should not be a deterrent to the
improvement or adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change \Fill cOllslilllle a gmnt Ii special pril'ilege to an indil'idual
O1l'11cr as conlmsted ,!'ilh the public ll'elfilre.
The proposed development does not comply with the GMP unlcss the BCC makes a supporling
linding 1'01' the project's density 01' the pctition is revised to be in keeping with staffs density
interprctation. In light of this fact, the proposed change could be construed to constitute a grant of
special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further dctcrmincd to be a public welfare
relationship because actions consistcnt with plans are in the public interest.
13. IYhelher Ihere are subslwllial reasolls Il'hy Ihe property call1lol be used ill accordance wilh
nislillg zollillg.
The subject property can be used in accordance with it Estates zoning district, however, with the
adoption of the Davis Boulevard/COlll1ty Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict, it is more appropriate to
rezone the property to allow uses in compliance with that Subdistrict. As the property is surrounded
by other urban-typc uses and is located within an Urban mea of the GMP, the proposed uses (not
necessarily the proposed density) would bc compatible with the existing pattern of developmcnt and
the GrvIP.
1 I IYhelher Ihe cll((lI,ge sllggesled is Ollt oj'scale lI'ilh the lIeeds oj'the lIeighborhood or Ihe
co 1(111)'.
Thc proposed development complies with the (iMP subdistrict's requirements for the uses
proposed, however the density issues remains ull1"esulved. Thc Givll' is a policy statement which has
evaluated the scale, density ami intensity or land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the
urban-designated areas or Collier County. Starr is or the opinion that tlie development standards
and the develuper commitments will ensure that the project is not out or scale with the needs of the
community irtlie ncc renders a supporting decision regarding the petition's density calculations, or
the densily is reduced in eompliancc \\'Jth stairs interpretation.
15. Whelher il is impossible tofillil olher ode(/lIole sites in Ihe cOlllllyfi!r the proposed IIse in
dislricls olrem!)' pel"/nillillg slIch mc
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is
not the determining raetor when evalnating the approprialencss or a zoning decision. The petition
was reviewed on its o\\n merit 1(11" complianec with the OrvlP and the LDC; and statT does not
review other sites in conjunction with a specilic petition.
16. The physical c!l((mclerislics o(lhe properl)' al1d the degree oj'sile a/temlionwhich wOllld be
reqllired 10 make Ihe pmperl)' IIsable fill' ((I1Y orlhe ral1ge or pOlemial uses lindeI' the proposed
zoning c!ass(jicufio/l.
PUDZ-2004-^"-6829 Davis Reserve MPUI) Page 17 of 24
May 7. 2009 CCI'C
Hev: 4/28/09
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 37 of 407
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and
this projecl will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all I"ederal, state, and local development
regulations during thc site development plan approval process and again latcr as part orthe building
permit process.
/7. the im/we! of dC1'e!Ol'melll Oil Ihe omi!obilil)' of Odel!Uale public filcililies and sC/'vices
(,ollsistelll ll'ilh Ihe !el'els of sel'1'ice adojJled ill Ihe ('oilier C()lml)' GMP and as defined and
imp!emellted l!lI'll/l}'.1t Ihe ('o!!iel' ('oullly odelfuole l'uhlicfa('ilities ol'dinallce.
The project will have to meet all applicahle criteria set 1')Jth in LDe Section 6.02.00 regarding
Adequate Public Facilities I,)r ami the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals
and objectives of the Clivll' regarding adequate public It1cilities. This petition has bcen reviewed by
county stall' that is responsible I'll' jurisdictional clements 01" the CJMI' as part of the rezoning
process and t!llJSC stair persons have coneluded that no LOS will be adversely impacted because the
pi'iJposed development. i I" approved subject to staff recommendations.
/8. Su('1t olltCl' foclol's, ,\Iolldal'd.\, 01' cl'ilerio Iltol lite Bool'd of ('ounl)' CommissionC/'s shall
de(,1Il iiJI!)or!((1lI illl!w tWOleclioll ofllte j'Hhlie h""!111. sofi'ly illld \I'e!fill'e.
To he determined by the !lce during its advertised puhlie hearing.
PUl) Filldillgs
I. llie ,\)Iilohili/\' ofl!le (/('cufiJI' lite IYl'e illld 1'(1/1('1'1/ ofdc1'e!ol'lIlcl/ll'rof!osed iI/ re!illion /0
jJltysiciI! clw/'Ucleri,\/ics of/he !ill/d. S/(IFOI(fU!/II)'. Ol'eus, Imflie olld (I('C('SS, dl'oil/oge, sewCl', \l'oler,
(ll/d ol!wl' (ftililies
The type :uld pattei'll of delelopment proposed should llol hale a ncgative impact upon any physical
characteristics or tlH~ land. the surrounding areas. tmllic <lilt! access. drainage, sewer, water, and
other utilities. l:lII'thennOl"c. this proic:ct. il' developed. Ivill hc required to compl)' with all count)'
regulations regardillg dnlillage. sewcr, water ami other utilities pursuallt to Section G.02.00
Adequate I'uhlic Facilities oflhe UK',
) i/dC'l!(f(lCl' (ff cl'idel/c(, 01 (fl/i/led ('unlm! ilnd SHil(lh/lilV of ilny j!mfJosed (lgl'eelllents,
COIl/ruc{, ()J' otilc!' illSfl'/tJl1cnis, or jh,. (llllendJ}/(!}]fs ill those projJuse(/, jJurlicuial'ly as they may
I'clule to (/)'!'ml,L;('/J/('I//s or !J!,(J\'isio17S 10 he 1//(/(/(' jC)!' the (,oJ/tinlfing operation and maintenance ql
s(fell oreus ulld fiIC'ililies Iltul ure 1101 (0 he 1'/I!1'ided or (flUil/loilled ot/'Hhlie npel/se,
Documents suhmitted with the application prolided satislilet()\")' evidence of unified control. The
Ml'lID c!ocumcnt and the general L11C devclopment regulations make appropriate provisions for
the continuing operation and mailllclHlI1CC oj' common areas.
3 ('ol/(i>l'lllily of Ihe !)/'Ujlosed /'iilHllcd /Jllil !l('\'e!o!mU'1I1 \I'illt lite gou!s. ohjccli\'c,\' olld
j)o!icic.\' o(llte GAil' I( ;,\11'),
f'UDZ-;WI!4-N<-6B29 Davi" [<eserve MI'UD F'a~)e 18 of 24
May 7, 2009 CCf'C
Rev 4/28109
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 38 of 407
County staff has reviewcd this petition and has olTered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives
and policies of the GtvlP within the GMP discussion of this stafT report. Based on that analysis,
staff is of the opinion that this petition cannot be l'ound consistent with the overall OMp as
stipulated in this stalT report.
4. ihe ill/el'l1al ulld C.Y/el'l1al compa/ibili/y of"p/'Oposed uses, whieh conditions may illelude
reslriellrms on localioll (!f" imp/'Ol'emen/s, reslrie/ions on design. and buffering and screening
requirements.
The development standards, landscaping and bufTering requirements contained in this petition are
designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses and the use mixture within
the projcet itself. StafT believes a linding thai this petition is compatible, both internally and
externally, with the pl'Oposeduses and with the existing surrounding uses would be appropriate once
the density issue is resolved. Additionally. the Developmcnt Commitments contained in thc pUD
document provide additional requiremenls the developer will have to fulfill.
5. The (/(Iequal)' of" u.mh!e open .Ijwee arC(/s ill exislence and as p/'Oposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement ol'the LDC.
6. The liming or sequellce of" developmen/ fill' Ihe purpose of" assuring Ihe adequ({(JI of
al'ililah!e iml)J'Ol'emenls undjilCi/ilies, both public alld primle.
Although develoJlment of the project has not yet commenced, the l1mlllg or sequence of
clevelopment in light of concurrency requirements docs not appear to be a signiJieant problem for
this project based upon thc transportation commitments containcd in the PUD document and
discusscd in considcrable detail in thc GMP Transportation scction of this report. In summary, the
petitioner bas proposed mitigation in tbe f(ml1 of Dcveloper Commitments in the PUD document.
The proposed mitigation consists of a monetary contribution to Collier County that would fund
Intelligent Tranic Management System [ITMS] signalization upgrades at Iwo intersections located
llll a hurricane route within thc TC!vIA. The devcloper bas also committed to contribute his fair
share towards interscction improvcments at Davis and Santa Barbara, and has agreed tilat no
Certificatc of Occupancy (CO) shall be issued on thc projcct unlil the substantial completion of
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension li'om Davis to Rattlesnake. The completion of the Santa
Barbara Extcnsion is anticipated to resuit in an increase to available capacity on County Barn Road.
lfcapacit)' does not becomc available on County Barn, Transportation Planning staJThas agreed that
the devclopcr may elect to movc finward with CO applications without availablc capacity by either
constructing network improvcmcnts al tbe intcrsection of County Barn and Davis, or by
contributing I"urthcr additional monics townrd lTIvlS signalization at two additional inlerseetions on
Davis Boulevard.
In addition, the project's developmcntmust bc in compliance with all other applicable concurrency
management regulations whcn developmcnt approvals are sought. The sunsetting provision of the
LDC will also apply to this development regardless of the capacity issue.
PUDZ-2004-AI\-6829 Davis (,eserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eere
Rev: 4/28/09
Page 19 of 24
Agenda Item No SA
December 14, 2010
Page 39 of 407
7, "fJ,C ahilil)' 0/11", suhjccl jJmjJeI'l)' alld ojsuI'I'()/II/(1i1l1!, al'cas 10 accolIlI/lOdale e.YI)(lI1sioll.
Please reJ"cr to Pl]]) llnding nUlllber (, above,
8. ('olllimllil)' lrilh l'[Jf) I'egulaliolls. 01' as 10 desimhle lIIodilicaliolls ojsuch I'egulaliolls in
Ihe I)(/l'liculol' case, hased Oil delel'lIIinolion Ihal such lIIodilicalions ol'e juslilied as lIIeeling public
I)II/poses 10 a degl'ee alleasl e'Iui\'alcllllo lileml applicalion oj'.wch I'egulalions.
This criterion esseotially requires an evalnation 01' the extent to which development standards and
deviations proposed 1(11' this PUD departll'olll development standards that wonld be required for the
most similar eon\'Cntional 70ning district. The development standards in this PUD are similar to
those standards and the petitioner is not seeking any deviations,
The petitioner's agent has however, indicated that he wishes to seek relief !i'om impact fee
payments and \l'ill be petitioning tbe Iloard in separate action if this rezone petition is approved.
Although related to This roone. \l'aivCl' or. or reduction or impact kes are addressed in separate
action by the !lee. Stair only mentions the issue so that the issue will be known.
The only ('utst,mding issue I"l' this petiti,'n is the (llvIl' density issue and a Bce policy decision
whether tlntllse is. or is nol. consistent with applicable subdistric!. Stair and the petitioners' agent
arc not in ilgree1l1enl Oil this issue as explained ill the (i)'vll' discussion of this report. Staff has
included a stipulatioll to ilddress the conce1"lls.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) IU~COMMENDATlON:
The J':AC hCilrd this Jll'litiolJ nil I"ehrumy 'I, 2tl()l). and voted II to [) to l')1'\vard this petition to the
CCPC alld the Ilec with il rcco1l1nlendation or Approval suhjeet to the StorJmvater Management
stiplJl,ltiolJ cOlltained ill the L;\C stalTrepor! as showll helow:
the lidil;olla is I'ellllil'ed 10 ohlo;1I 0 ,\FWMf) fm'imlllllelllol Resoul'ce I'amil (ERl') or SUl'face
!VoleI' Mallagemelll 1"'l'llIil IJl'iol' 10 Site d"''C/oIJlllelll 1'1011 OIJI)I'01'ol h.l' ('oIlier Coullly.
/\clclitiollally. thl' L;\C added 11", i(,llowing stipuhltioll:
1hi.l' I)m/eel .1'11<111 he .I'Uhl('CI 10 /:'/) ( , alilJl'ol'ol Wiol' 10 uI'llml"'; o{the finl ,','ile L!c1'elojJlllenl Plan
orjilla/ p/OI:COI/.\II"/ICllOlI li/al/.\ ,\!'('ci/icu/II', Ihe dC1'e/olwl' shall ('IISlIl'e Ihejil//olFing:
r 'Ihal ill(' si/(' lilollS delllolls!l'ule Iho/ III(' Ill'dmlo,f!,I' ojlhe Iil'e,lel'pe Ol'e(( shull he lIIuin/aillcd 01'
ellllUlle('d: !II"I
2. ,)'10/'///)1'0/('1' shall 1I0! h(' disch!ll',!';ed helo\!' Ihe exis/illg seuI'ollol high 11'oler level.
The petitioller has incorporated the stipulatiolls into tile PUD document Exhibit E.2 that were added
by the I':;\C. however the E;\(, stalT report stipulatioll is illready a requirement, thus to include Ihat
stipulation ill the PUD docu1l1ellt would be redundant. Starr has been directed to remove
redulldaneies rrom PU f) documents therel,)re that stipulation was nol added. .
PUDZ,200~-^I"G828 f)'lVis "eselve MPUD
May 7, 2(JU9 CCI'C
Rev ~128109
I'aue 2U of ;>4
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 40 of 407
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
This pelitioner has held three Neighborhood In['ormation Meetings. The first N1M was held on
March 2, 2005, and the second was held on l'vlay 29, 2007 and the third on June 30, 2008. The
synoJlses of those meetings arc provided bclow.
The agcnt/applicant held the first NIM at the Unity of Naples Church, Fellowship !-lall, 2000 Unity
Way, Naples on March 2, 2005. Five persons other than thc applicant's team and county staff
allendcd. Thc applicanl and agenl began the presentation with comments referencing the area to a
GMP Amendmcnt for mixcd-use sub-district Davis B1vd./Collnty Barn Road "neighborhood
commercial" ccntcr that was approvcd by the BCC: CP-2004-5 ami is currently being reviewed by
the Dcpartment of Community Alhirs. Thc applicant stated that the conceptual project shown on
the graphics was to follow thc "Community Character" plan recommendations with possible joint
shared acccss with the Baplist church, be bike/pedcstrian ti'icndly and include up to 45,000 sq. ft. of
retaillol1ice in a "traditional" neighborhood design, including residential ovcr commercial, parking
in rear of buildings liKing and ncar strcets. The applicant also went on to statc the following points:
Three and 2 bedroom residcntial town-homcs
3 stories bui Idings
4 storics total including parking
Multi-family, no single family nnits
34-35 "Semi-a['J(mlablc" Ion condos
Up to 248 residenlialunits. then 280-290 units staled later
Developer commilled to sidcwalks pCI' code
Access through courtyards
Ingrcss, egress at Davis flIvd and County Barn Roads
Buffering requiremcnts negotiated with Seacrest School.
Conccrn stated by Falling Waters rcsidcnt Mr. Simonclli, over tranic impacts, saying that Falling
Watcrs and Countrysidc ha\'c askcd FDOT for tramc signal and statcd his name and addrcss for
public notice as Mr. Simonelli. Falling Watcrs Master Association, 7200 Davis Boulevard, Naples,
34] 04.
Mr. Pctcr Costello of Glen Eagle qucstioned whethcr or not the proposal would include a
lIomeowncrs Association. to which the applicant rcsponded yes.
Project planner, Mikc Busi advised the applicant and agenl to hold another NJM based on the new
information: agent for the applicant agreed stating "we'II come back and do another meeting; we've
made some utncmlmcnts since the required advcrtising".
The second NIM was held on fvlay 29, 200") at 5 :30 p.m. at the Berean Baptist Church. Thirty two
pcrsons signed the attendance sheet that was provided. Rcsidcnts of Glen Eagle and Falling Waters
were both rcprcsentcd at thc meeting as well as residenls or persons hom other areas. Attendees
asked about the proposed density and the intcnsity of the commercial uses and about the inlended
preservation and bnflering amounls. Concerns were raised about the proposed aff(mlable housing
componcnt und the dcnsity proposed in the overall project citing concerns that the project would be
too concentrated. A discussion ensured amoug thc attendces regarding personal experiences relative
rUDZ-2004-^H-6829 Uavis "eserve IvIPUIJ
lvIay 1, 2009 CCloC
r~ev: 4/28/09
Page 21 of 24
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 41 of 407
10 aJ"l(mlablc hou,ing. Questions were raised and answered by the petitioner's agent about Davis
Iloulevard improvemcnts and about the project's proposed access on Davis Boulevard. Concerns
were raiscd about the price points mentioned by the petitioncr. Responding to an inquiry about how
the project \Vould look, thc petitioner mentioned sevcral projects of his in other locales. The
petitioner prescnted drawings to sholl' whal the project might look like upon completion. Staff
notcd that these drawings mllJid not bc binding upon thc petitioner.
The pastor of I3erean !laplist Church inquircd about alcohol service within tbe project given the
project's proximit)' to a school and a church. The petitioner noted that the project would need to
c0111pl)' with the count)' regulations regarding the separation distance requirements for alcohol use
and sale.
In response to audience inquiries about the proposed size of the units, the petitioner indicated that
he could not commit to an)' speci1k measuremcnts at this time. but it was his intention as of toda)'
to provide larger units. In response to questions regarding the number of stories proposed, the
petitioner's agent indicated that the residelllialunits would bc three stor)' structures.
;\ discussion ensurcd regarding whieh rcsidents would be noticed about upcoming hcarings. The
petitioner's agent explained that signs would be posted, an ad would be placed in the newspaper,
and Ictter~; would be sent to those pruperty O\\11crs ....ithin the distance required b)' the LOC.
Neighbors were encouraged to eOlltact Ille slarf with sJleci lic qnestions. The meeting ended with
the petiti,,,,er's altollley stating Ihat the petitioner's team had alread)' met with some propcrt)'
owners' associations and would be happy to meet with others if it was requested.
The third NIM was tluly noticed b)' ti,e applicant and held on .June JO, 2008 at 5:JO p.m. at the
Berean Haptist Church. Ihinecn people I'rom thc public attended, as well as the applicant's team
(Slwun Malarkcy 'l1ld ]Zohert j\ndrea (II. ('(laslal FngineLTing Consultants. Inc. Harr)' Goldmeier
plopcrt)' owner alollg wilh Counly stall' Kay llcsclc,n).
Shaun Malarkey with Coast,t! Fngineeriog l'onsultllllts, Inc.. represenling the applicant presented an
overview of the requested lG.'llle li.om the Estates (I.:) I.oning district to the rVlixed Use Planned
Unitllcvelopmenl (\'II'{ !I)) lOlling district.
()f Ihose who hatl qllesti"ns or eoncelllS. the applicant's consultants responded as follows:
I. The particip'"lls were cOlll:crncd Wltl, till' Increase ollrallie on both Count)' I>am Road and
Ilavis Hlvd. whieh Shaun (with Coasl,ri J-:nginecring) respondcd, that this project can not move
""ward until Ihey received a passed lnrl"lic repmt rrOIll the Counly, He also mentioned that a new
tral"lic report. by th,: County. has ,,11011'11 a ",tluction intranie 011 both roadways.
2. There w'as also concern rC[l,mling the right tUll1 only onto I lavis Hlvd.. which would then li)l'ce
more vehicles to make (J..tUIllS in front ol'lhe Coulltryside entnrnce and asked if a tranie light could
be installed at that IDeatiDD. Kay !leselenl(cDunty stan) responded that that would be a decisiol1thc
Transportation !livisiolll\"ould lll"ke during the plan revicw slage.
3. It was "skcd !row much cOllllllercial space would be loc"ted at tllis site and what type of
restrieliolls arc ill pl"ce with rOllllllerci,,1 est"hlishmellts with neighboring schools (ScaeIest school
is located nexl 10 t!ris locatioll). w!rich Shaun responded no more thall J5.000 square jeet of
PU[)Z~2004-^r~-()829 !)avis r~esc!ve MPUU
May l, 7.009 CCI"C
Rev 4/28109
Pa~Je 22 of 24
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 42 of 407
commercial space would be on site and he would have to check on the types of establishments
regarding the school.
4. Participants also wanted to know what type of residential living facilities were planned for this
development. ShaUll respondcd that 20 percent of the residential properly will be set aside for
affordable housing, of which property could only bc leased/sold to people in the medium income
level (maximum $56,000 - $70,OO()) and the maximum building height could be no more then 65
feet. The residential property will be both rental and ownership propertics.
The meeting ended at approximately 6:20 p.m.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OlIFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Ol1ice has reviewed the staff report for PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 revised on
April 13, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rcc0l1l1ncnds that the Collier Connty Planning Commission (CCPC) f(llWard Petition PUDZ-
2004-AR-6829 and its companion Al lDl3A to the Board of County Commissioners (BeC) with a
recommendation of approval subjeet to the stipulatiun that either of two things must occur:
I) The AIIDBA amll'lJD document shall be revised to expressly limit residcntial development to
234 nnits, resulting in a density of 10.25 units per acre, based upon a consistent application of the
density bonuses allowances of thc CHvll' to with 187 of the 2:14 dwellings comprising the residential
component. while llO less tlwn 47 af[()\"(lable and workl(Hee residentialullits would be located above
ground J]oor commercial establishments in mixed-usc buildings; OR
2) Thc BCe makes a policy decision regarding whether:
A. The overall density is limited because additional density cannot be derived ham locating
ammlable-workl(ll'ee housing in the commercial part of the PUD, where additional density is
alrcady awurded; ~lJld
B. Density bonuses can be derived from aJ](mlable-lVorkl()rce housing units that are not
geographically located in the residential part of the pun: and
C. Density blending. as residential density generated [rom calculations including the
commcreialtracl can be transl"erredlo the residential part of the pU)).
An al"lirmative determination I(lr ALL three issues would thercl()re deem this petition, as proposed,
consistent with the FLUIc:/FLUM.
Separate motions arc required to address the rezone request and the A1-IDBA request.
IOUDZ-2004-AI\-6829 Davis I,eserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 CCI'C
Rev: 4/28/09
Page 23 of 24
Agenda Item No SA
December 14. 2010
Page 43 of 407
Pln;PARLIlIlY:
--t~Ctc ~ !;)C)J.R. &;; iL~' n
KAY OW)I'I.!:]V!. AIel', 1'1< INC W.\ I. I'LANNI:R
UI:l'ARHH:NT OF !ONINe; .\N]) I ,;\)'-.'1) !JIVU()P~IJ:NI
if 1;3,/ OeL__
1-" fr5A TF
I<I.:VIFW
REVlEWIW BY:
I.! \ .
1{;\YlvIc)NLl)7) IJIJlc-J\\S, 7Oi"INC; M.\Ni\CiIR
,
DFI' A1\TlvII'NI 01' !ONIM; ANI) lAND I>IVFJOI'~'Il,NT 1\1'VIEW
. I I
i I,., / ,y'"
/'/:"0/
-- !-I)~\TE
SllSAN M. ISTI;NES. AJC1'.I>I1\I("IO"
DEI'ARIMI:NT OF !ONIi\)C; ilNI) 1:11\1 J I )FVIIOI'~'I}N I "leVIL\\!
I
I
, / -! '
, , , !
----'-------j-
IlAIE
AI'I'I~OVI,:n Il\":
/:
,,;" /"
__i_~L~.~~.~::z__:.~:~~/7t- _ /..<-;::-:J{~'"d'_f-,;i?:t..-
.lCJSFJ'U j(, ~;CI-IJVllj I' ;\(JiVIINISI "i{rc )1;
I '
COi\'llvIl:[\)IIY I)I'VII \)1'\11'\1 <" li\VIIW>J\II!\) I
.'//7 /()(
f'-'])Atl~
ill SII; Vii IS IlIVISIOi'-!
lClll~lli\'cly :;clwdlllcd j()]' 11ll' ,11II1e )3. :-~{l(Jl) l~l)(ln_1 (}]"( 'tllll]l)' ('olllJllissinllcrs Ivlccting
COLLlLI~ (Olii\T\
- 1/ \,'
T\IARK I', SIR\I!". CIIAII~\I/IN
i
I(il !,
III ANN I [\(; (Olllilll:;,'i10,'i:
\ 'I'
I 'i
:I ',,'/, It I
I I'!
])ATI
ilttClclllllCIII: iIICIIHI lrulll ('IlIlII'I'!'lil'lh;Vl' I'L"lllillg. t1:lIctl '\l'l'il 12. :2()()')
PUDZ,200rJ--I\!~-()e;~9 l);wis 1\(;;';01 ve f'MJU1)
[1.1ay 7, 20m] CCI~C
I\Gv: il/13/09
P,l!-J8 ~~rJ- of 24
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 44 of 407
PETITION: PUDZ: 2004-AR-6829, COLLIER DA VIS, LLC
When we left we were anticipating a collection of people to discuss Petition
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829, the Collier Davis, LLC, MPUD at the southeast quadrant of intersection of
Davis Boulevard and County Bam Road.
Mr. Pritt, has everybody arrived?
MR. PRITT: Yes, sir, they have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we are ready to go.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be swom in by the court
reporter.
(Speakers were duly swom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one disclosure. This was heard before the Portable
Housing Advisory Committee, which I'm a member. That was done purely in the sunshine, but --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You were outside?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I received c'ln"espondence tfom Tony Pires' office.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All of us did that. Do we have to disclose that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Tony wcnt ti'om killing trccs to killing the Intcrnct. Yeah,l
think all of us have received inf(mnation from Tony Pires.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, he's still killing trees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, killing trees too?
Go ahead, Ms. Caron, did you have any more besides Tony?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I met with Evan Stcingmi fium Napoli. And the e-mail from
Tony.
CHA1RMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley')
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had none.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, no discussions with anyone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I met with Evan Steingart, I talked to Tony Pires and got numerous
e-mails,asallofusl think have, and I met with Mr. Pritt.
The issues I went over with everybody will be the same issues that I will be going over
today.
And with that, we'll move ](Jr\vard. Mr. Pritt, it's all yours.
MR. PRITT: Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, good morning. I'm
Robeli D. Pritt, I'm with Roetzel and Andress Law Firm. I'm here on behalf of Barry and Lee
Goldmeier. Barry Goldmeier is right here today. They're the owners of Collier Davis, LLC, which is
the owner of the property in question.
Also with me is the project team, Robert Andrea; he's also the agent and the planning
consultant with Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Brian DeLony from Coastal Engineering,
next to him Tammie Lyday, who's an environmentalist with Earth Balance. Traffic engineer Ted
Treesb trom TR Transportation Consultants. Some of you know Ted, 1 believe. And Matt Polak of
Chisholm Architects. '
I'd like to reserve the oppOliunity t(lr cross-exa -- or I would like the opportunity for cross
Agenda Item No SA
December 14. 2010
Page 45 of 407
examination and reserve a few minutes f~)r rebuttal. I think that that's part of your rules and
regulations anyhow, but I just wanted to put that on the record.
I'd like to talk to you about this project which is one ofthc oldest projects probably in the--
pcnding in the county. This is a culmination of a planning and zoning proccss that's been going on
since 2004. It's a proposcd mixed use PlID with att(mlable housing elements.
The petitioner rcquests the Collier County Planning Commission consider rezone of the
subject site 11'0111 Estates zoning district to the mixed use planned development MPlID zoning
district ft)!, a project to bc known as Davis Reserve MPlID, and we'd also ask f~)r the approval of an
atlurdable housing dcnsity bonus agreement.
We'll have more dctails on thc subject property, but it consists of 22.83 acres. It's located in
the southeast quadrant of the intersection of[)avis Boulevard and County Barn Road. And Robert
Andrea will cover the dctails of that, but we do have that up on thc visualizer. Thank you, Mr.
Bellows, fur doing that.
The good news is that except Itl!' the calculation and dispersion of allowable density, we
concur with the staff report. We believe that the stalTreport is overall positive; lInft)rtunately fur
both parties, I gucss, there is a disagreement about a math situation and interpretation oflanguage
having to do with a density calculation and what is allowable.
I would like to conccntrate 111Y comments -- bej(,re we tUI11 this over to thc real experts, I'd
like to concentrate my comments on that issue and explain what the difTerence is and why we think
that our interpretation is the better inteIl11"Ctation.
We hope that this single issue docs not override or ovclTide the proceedings here today to a
point whcrc wc lose It)cus of the fact that on almost everything else -- I think everything else we're
in concurrence with the stall.
As a background. you have to understand that the sub-district has some distinct features.
Primarily it's a product of the wishes of lite counly commission to provide for afjtmjable housing.
And I knoll' that seems very remote in 200l), but it was not remote in 2005. I assure you. And you
probably remember. most of you were on this commission at that time.
Fortunately the Goldmeiers were then and still arc I,ulli]iar with and involved in
developments that consist of or contain ~"1(lJ"(]able housing. They made a commitment to the board
jt)r an af/tlrllable housing CllmponenL In doing so -- and this I'm talking about here is in the GMP
ulnClldmcnt pn)ccss.
In doing so, they based the commitment on discussions and the actions that were taken at
board hearings. Thc transcript ofthose bearings Hum tbc transmittal hearing and the adoption
hearing wcre not included by the stalfin the stalfreport appendix. We ask thattbose be included,
and we appreciate the County Attm'nc.y' indicating to the staff that that ought to he sent to you. And
hopefully you have the transcripts of January 25th, 2005, and June 7th, 2005. Both oflhose were
b()ard h~arillgs.
I'm going to ask today that those be admitted into evidence in this hearing, and I'm going to
talk very brielly hum at least one of those appendices.
As much as I dread -- being a little bit of a math phob. as much as I dread doing math and
doing it on television, I have to do a little bit of math. And anybody here can COITcct me on the math
calculations if I've made them improperly. but I don't think so.
Fortunately we have Mr. Eastman here li'om the school district, maybc he can help.
Stan'says we're entitled up to 234 units. We calculate that we're entitlcd up to 302 units.
However, we're only asking it)r 2~() units, Importantly. since the sub-district commits 20 percent ofsthat differential to afltmlable housing, there arc 10 units of new aft()J'(jable housing at stakc,
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 46 of 407
And the difference of course is 286, what we think we're entitled to, minus 234, what the
staff thinks we're entitled to, times 20 percent is 10.4 affordable housing units that would be lost
under the staft's interpretation.
Now, I know fi'om attending the Affordable Housing COImnittec meeting the other day that
the county is busy purchasing existing foreclosures and paying to fix them up at a pretty large cost.
However, but there's not much if any new affordable housing being built, to my knowledge. And we
think tllat that is an important factor for you to consider.
The basis of the staffs calculation is that the project is not entitled to the additional units, it's
at the bonus density, which is calculated on three units per acre times 22.83 acres, or 68 units, is not
available since the sub-district requires affordable housing.
And that's where we get into an interpretation of the law. Nowhere in the sub-district
provisions or anywhere else in the code does it say that we forfeit our right to bonus density by
committing to a minimum affordable housing allocation in the sub-district.
If you look at the language of the -- I presume you have, but certainly I'm happy to go over
it with you. But looking at the language of the sub-district itself in the Growth Management Plan--,
it's a little bit unfiJI1unate because the way it was written, some of which was written on the fly at
the Board of County Commissioners meeting. And I'm sympathetic to that problem.
But if you look, if you take a look at it, you will not find anywhere in there, that we could
find, anyhow, that says that just because it's a required density calculation that we forfeit the right to
those units. And essentially that's what the issue is.
The matter did come up in the January 25, 2005 hearing, and the assistant county attorney
at that time stated to the board that the projcct would qualify Illr the density bonus. And that's in the
transcript fi'om that meeting. I could read it to you, if you'd like, hut it's in the transcript.
That assurance was con'eet. It was part of the hoard's und<"Tstanding. It was critical to my
client's bemg amenable to agree to provide altlJrdablc housing. That statement went unchallenged
until the staff interpreted differently.
A review of the June 7th, 2005 transcript of the Board of County Commissioners indicates
the staff had other problems interpreting the actions ofthe board. Again, as a long-time
governmental attol11ey. I can attest that this happens. However -- and by the way, that's why we
have tapes and CD's and things like that and transcripts.
However, the hottomline is the actions of the hoard were intend cd to require this type of
housing. aflordable housing, and they were talking about minimum numher of units, but that
nowhere in there is an indication that we know of that they intended not to allow the density honus
provisions to apply.
Wc asked that this be brought to the attention of the legal staff. The staff concluded that the
interpretation of the board's intent is inconclusive. Under principles of statutory construction, when
therc's an ambiguity the intent of the legislative body is the pulstar -- and the Supreme Court of
Florida uses that word -- the pulstar of statutory or ordinance interpretation. Both sides agree that
the hoard in the final analysis should make the detcl111ination.
Now, since I'm talking about statutory or ordinance interpretation, the staff seems to imply
that somehow ifour proposed interpretation is accepted, the development violates the Growth
Management Plan.
Well, that is impossible, since the sub-district regulation is in the Growth Management
Plan. Ifthere were a conflict between the provisions of the GMP itself; which there are not, that had
to be resolved in the process of review and adoption ofthe GMP by the county staff, by the
Planning Commission, by the Board of County Commissioners or the Department of Community
Aqencla Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 47 of 407
AfTairs. And there's no indication that there's an internal conflict betwcen that section and anything
else in the Growth Managemcnt Plan.
Evcn ifthere wcre, thc -- under rules of statutory interprctation, the specific governs over
the general. And this is vcry specific as to this sub-district and, therefore, those rules would trump
any rules to the contrary that are generalized in the GMP.
If Mr. Goldmeier would have been notified when the county unilaterally without his
knowledge amended his sub-district, as happencd in 2007, he probably would have challenged the
whole thing at the time. Howcver. that's water over the bridge, under the dam, or whatever you want
to call that, whatever the metaphor is. And we're here with a document that can be interpreted and is
capable of being interpreted and should be inteqlreted to allow the density that we have asked for.
Now, the second quibble that we had with the county's staff position on density is that it is
improperly confusing the teml component with the term parcel. The sub-district -- GMP sub-district
regulations refer to a residential component and a commercial component. It does not say anything
about there bciIlg a separate parcelllll' each component. These are jusl components of one parcel,
one 22.S3-acre parcel. And there's a relerence to the component in the Growth Managemcnt Plan,
hut that does not mean that density has to be allocatcd only as to one portion versus the other
portion. It's an overall calculation, and there's a mcthodology filr that. And it's our position that the
calculation of dens it)' should be done Illr the cntire parcel, and that the location in the parcel is not a
function ofthe density calculation process.
Again, this is a single parcel. Mixcd use is specially permitted in the sub-district
regulations, and allowing residential development in the commercial component with an interrclated
traditional neighborhood plan. The sub-district regulations do not promote inflexibility, and neither
should the staff analysis.
I think that you received a report jj'om the Aj](mlable Housing Subcommittee -- or
Committee. And If so. I would ask that thatl1e madc part 01 the record III these proecedll1gs.
I do want to -- bcl(llT I turn this over to Robeli and the analysis of the rest of the plan itself;
I do want to refer you to language in the -- I'm sorry, in the plan doeumcnt itself There is a
rclerenee h bear with me just one second here. I'll tind it. Oh. thank you. Yeah. there's a relerenee in
the plan -- in the Growth Managementl'lan whcrc it says eligible density shall be as determined by
application of thc dcnsity rating system.
Now, as I said, unlilrtunatcly that shows up in thc residential eomponcnt. However. if you
look further down. vou'lIlind that thcre is a Ii.lrthcr discussion of thc density rating system as it
. . -
applies to Davis/County l3arn sub-district. and there's nothing that prohibits that calculation from
applying also ill the COllllllclTial component.
Again. \\'C could al! go back and drall it better if we had lots of time. but that's a little bit of
thc problcm. We'rc not t'lulting stallti)r their interpretation. but we just think that the interpretation
that we have based upon the transcripts and the intent of the county commission are thc bcttcr
interpretation of this amhiguous issue.
So again. I don't want to beat this horse any more than we nced to. I'd like to get on to the
presentation itself I f you havc any questions. I'll be glad to entertain them on the density issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt. I think there's going to be a lot of questions, at least on
my behalC hut I know that staff is planning to present thcir side of it too, so it might be beneticial n
at least I will hold my qucstions until I hear everybody's side of it bctore I stmi trying to understmld
it better.
MR. PRITT: Okay. thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? As long as that's okay with everybody on the panel?
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 48 of 407
One question I'd like to ask thc County Attorney before we go too far. Mr. Pritt brought
something up in the beginning, I didn't want to interrupt his prcsentation, but he wanted to reserve
the right for cross examination. We have not done that in the past typically. Nonnally residents and
people come here to addrcss this conunission, they don't come prepared to defend themselves with
an attorney's questions, nor do they bring attorneys themselves.
I don't want to put an air of concern or stress unnecessarily on the public from speaking, so
I don't want to start something that isn't going to give us a free flow ofinfonnation.
So Mr. Klatzkow, is that something that we're obligatcd to here?
MR. KLA TZKOW: In this contcxt I think it's probably not a bad idea to allow Mr. Pritt to
question people. Bccause I think wc all know where this one's going to be hcading, given the
amount of e-mails and phone calls I've gotten, anyway. And just to get a full record before the
board. So in this contcxt I think it's not a bad idea.
I would say that the Chair has some latitude in keeping the time on this down, all right. This
isn't going to be a three day hearing. But if we have peliinent qucstions and we can get thcm done
fairly quickly, I don't have an issue. Espccially if Mr. Pritt wishes to question staff. If staff's going to
take a position, I don't havc any issuc with them being questioned on that po~ition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about members of the public?
MR. KLA TZKOW: They're just here as witnesses. I don't think cross examining them
would be appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you.
Okay, with that we'll move forward. Go ahead, sir.
MR. ANDREA: Good moming. Robert Andrea, with Coastal Engineering.
As Mr. Pritt said, we're here today requesting a rezone of 22.83 acres from the Estates
zoning district to a mixed use planned unit development known as Davis Reserve MPUD.
The location as you sec on the map is located on thc southcast comer of Oavis Boulevard
and County Barn Road. The property is surrounded on the west with Napoli condos; to the north
Glen Eagle; to the cast, Seacrest Schools; and to the south, Berean Baptist Church and Seaerest
Schools also.
The subject property lies within the urban land use designation area, and it also has a
designated (sic) with its own ]oeation speci1ic sub-district within the urban mixed use district since
June 7th, 2005. It is known as the Davis Boulcvard/County Barn Road mixed use sub-district.
It was then later amended by Collier County in January, 2007.
Policy 7.1 through 7.7 undcr Objective 7 of the Future Land Use Element werc approved on
October 26th, 2004. This objective and its policies adopted certain Smart Growth provisions into the
Future Land Use Element.
Since the adoption of Objective 7 and its policies, methods to encourage such planning, the
county has gone into implement them fUliher. (Sic.)
The future land development regulations were fonnulated, then adopted as iuture land use
element provisions i()r this specific Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use sub-district.
This is one oreollier County's earliest oppOliunities to apply more of the practices found in
the towered better places, the community character plan i()r Collier County. The community
character plan provides that the county with the policies document featuring the most useful aspects
of traditional neighborhood design, smart growth, trame calming, new urbanism, and other p]amling
contemporary planning practices.
These policies are implemented and referenced generally by this mixed use sub-district
iuture land use provisions.
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 49 of 407
The Davis Boulevard/County Bam Road mixed usc sub-district is comprised of 22.83
acres. The intent of this sub-district is to provide for development that incorporates the traditional
neighborhood and mixcd use design featurcs, as well as recommendations of the Collier County
community charactcr plan. These includc pcdestrian fi'icndly and bicycle fricndly streets, parks,
small plazas and other open spaccs, and a mix of rcsidential and neighborhood commercial uses.
Integration of residential and commercial uscs in the same building is encouraged.
The commcrcial componcnt shall be intcrconnected with the residential component, and the
commcrcial component shall be conveniently located to scrve residents in the nearby surrounding
area.
Additionally, this sub-district is rcquired to develop a percentage of its units as affordable
workf(lrce housing, and was the first in the county to volunteer to do this.
This spccific requirement reads: A minimum oflj I residcntial units shall be developed in
the sub-district. This reflects the density rating system base density of four dwelling units per acre
applied to the entire sitc acreage I()r the project total density, whether it is a minimum of the 91
dwclling units or a grcater amounLiis allowcd by the dcnsity rating systcm, density bonus
provisions and approvcd via rezoning.
A minimum of 10 percent must be at1i)rdablc workj()rce housing units, provided for those
earning less than or equal to 80 percent ofthc medium household income. For the Collier County
and other -- I'm SOl..-y, fi,l' Collier County. Thc othcr 10 percent must be at1(lrdable workf()rce
housing units providing f(ll' thosc earning greater than thc 80 pcrcent, but no greater than 100
pcreent ofthe mcdium household ineonlc li,r Collicr County.
What we arc proposing f(ll' this sub-district is the mixcd use planned unit dcvelopment
whcrc we will be applying thc ncw urhanism dcsign principles, along with the traditional
neighborhood dcsign and mixed use features. This includcs a denser dcsign with pedestrian friendly
and bicycle jj'icndly streets, buildings that arc closcr to the strcets. achieved by reducing sctbacks,
sidcwalks along thc roadways, parking along the streets. small plazas and tumabouts, which are all
traffic calming teehniqucs. public open spaces. and a mix of residential and neighborhood
COllllllclTial uses.
It will bc similar to other recent most popular developments in Naples. like Bayfront or the
Mercado. We envision people being ablc to work and livc in this community. They will be ablc to
hikc or walk to work.
Thc proposal includcs up to 35.000 square fect of commcrcial uses, which will be located in
the northwesl corner of the project. Let me put a site plan up.
And we also propose 2g(1 Illulti-lillnily residential units. which equatcs to 12.5 units per
acre acrnss the entire 22.S] acres.
There will bc a mixture oj"buildings with residential over commercial and strictly
residential buildings. 20 pcrcent oj" which will be at1(mlable workf(lFCC housing, as required by the
sub-district.
There'll be 5.2'! acres oj" prcserve. And you can sec it located thcre in thc southeast portion
of the projcet. Therc'lI be one point ofacccss on Davis Boulevard. which will bc a right in and right
out. And one on County Barn Road, which will be sharcd with the Bcrean Baptist Church, with (sic)
the shared acecss is encouragcd.
We'll provide all the required landscape butTers. the open spaces around the lake, as well as
other public spaces and a cOllllllunity center.
Thc architectural thelllc, as required by the subjcct, will be eOlllmon throughout thc project.
Wc believe this project is an cxeellcnt location lill' this type of dcvelopment. It provides
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 50 of 407
much needed atfordable and worktixce housing within close proximity to employment
opportunities within Naples.
And attending the Affordable Housing Committee meeting the other day we learned that
they are also looking tor this type of affordable housing close in. It's been very difficult for them to
find it this close in to Naples.
We appeared before them, and they seemed to agree that this was an excellent location, and
they did seem to suppOli the project.
The project has been going through this county process tor many, many years. We've done
as many as eight reviews, and we have worked closely with staff and also reached out to the
surrounding property owners. We've held at least three neighborhood infol1nation meetings, as well
as met with individual groups, as requested.
We feel we are in compliance with all county requirements. And other than the outstanding
density issue, we believe that we do meet all the requirements and they will have a rec01llinendation
of approval once that issue is resolved.
At this time we ask for your approval and your recommendation of approval to -- for this
rezone of Estates to mixed use planned unit development. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of the applicant? And I might suggest to
the Planning Commission members, on this density issue I know that statfhas got a side of it to
present in regards to how they calculated it. Mr. Pritt has provided us with the way their applicant
calculated it. So beIllre we gct into that onc, maybe we ought to wait till staff here presents their side
of it to us on this issue.
But certainly we have other issues in this document that we normally would ask questions
about conccrning the PUO and other things like that. So are there any questions at this time within
the PUO document?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. But let me just ask one question about density. It's a
one number answcr. In thc aftonlable housing bonus system, in the package you're showing, you
were asking f()r five units based upon what was circled in that application?
MR. ANDREA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yet Mr. Pritt mentioned three units. What is the exact--
the right number?
MR. ANDREA: Well, the eligibility we believe is five, but we're requesting the three.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll CatTY exactly the next one.
in tenns ofthe layout ofthis thing, one of the major pmis ofthis thing is, you know, new
urbanism, new towns, traditional, all that stull: yct we're not seeing anything othc'f !hml a vin
diagram for a plan. Do you have anything further that could actually -- in other words, there's
nothing here that shows that. I mean, the cul-de-sac kind of -- the circles, giving some hints, but--
MR. ANDREA: Right. At this time I'll let the architect stand up.
MR. POLAK: Good morning. My name is Matt Polak, senior vicc-president of Chisholm
Architects.
I have an overlay hcrc.
What we've gonc ahcad and done is gone ahead and attach cd to the plan that you're seeing
there, based on Robert's kind of bubbled diagram a potential layout for the units in keeping with
traditional neighborliood design concepts.
As you can sce -- I'm not sure if there's a way to point to anything here. One of the basic
concepts here is that wc have a main entry that's coming off of Davis that leads you down a main
Aqenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 51 of 407
boulevard, which is ii'onted by units on both sides of the street.
And, you know, one of the design concepts that we're trying to do is to create a
neighborhood design where we have eyes on the street, as well as eyes into the parking area.
What you're seeing here is basically a ground tloor layout of the plan, where these would be
two and three story buildings. The ground floor would be predominantly made up of two and three
bedroom flats. And along that street, corridor here, you cirele down along a main boulevard, which
terminates into a circle, and fi'OIn there you can either go enter into the parking areas whieh are
hidden back ti-om view, so you have a very t(mnal tront tircade to the buildings in creating -- where
you're going ahead and creating a streets cape design.
In that we create a section where you also have a side-walk along here. We've allowed for
parallel parking along the street here. Onc, it acts as a street calming, it provides strect calming
therc. It also allows lor visitor parking, people can park. they're going to visit, tlley can park nearby
to the people they're going to see.
Again, like I mentioned, we went ahead and arc tucking the parking behind, and tllose are
being buiTered by the wetland area along the perimeter ofihe project.
Then that residential component then tenninates into a commercial component, which also
has residential units on top of it. We f()resee those commercial uses being very -- you know, very
small neighborhnod uses, predominantly maybe a small convcnience store, a lot of professional
of1ices, graphic artists. architccts, lawyers, accountants could utilizc that space there in acting as a
live/work opportunity there.
And then we've created t(,eal points. You know. we have a -- we're taking advantage of the
lake as a ItJCal point, and also we're taking advantage of the wetland area too to add as a t(Jcal point.
One of the other issues. you know, you gct with going with a traditional neighborhood
design conccpt is the walk-ability. The -- li'om this unit to the commercial complex is less than a
live minute walk. So it really promotes people to walk along and through the neIghborhood, as
opposed to just kind of coming in and going into their unit. It allows interaction between people.
Most -- all these units will have terraces facing the street. They'll either be terraces ti-om the living
units or private terraces j(-OIn bedrooms, so that vou begin to gct an interaction between people. And
it also is a very. very good passive security in that people are looking at all n around the entire
perimeter of the building. You have people looking down the street, you have people who are able
to lonk out into the parking areas. So you take care of a lot of issues where you n where people
could cause problems, typically where you have with sOllle other apartment complexes where the
building is kind of surrounded by parking.
And then in kecping with the scale of the buildings. like I said. these would be two and
three story huildings. \Ve did bring some' phc1tographs of projects similar in scale and appearance.
Although this is not a tirit accompli, and certainly not presenting it as such, but to get an idea of
what it could potentially look like,
Basically what vou're seeing here is a streetscape. The streets a bit wider than the one we're
proposing but you have your parallcl parking along the street. you have your sidewalk, you have a
green strip. And I think our particular instance is about 15 ICet deep where you have landscaping, as
well as SOIl1C printc telTaees.
You're seeing the nat buildings along here. and then these units on top are two story sort of
I like to call thell1like a townhouse type unit where the living areas are on the second tloor and then
there's a set 0 r stairs that takes you up to the hedrooms that arc up on the third floor.
There's a few more pictures here I can go through.
Again, this is kind of a shot of a -- this is a bit of a larger boulevard option there. But the
Agenda Item No" SA
December 14, 2010
Page 52 of 407
buildings are sort of going down in scale. You're seeing the units here. And the access to the units is
actually not from the street but actually internalized in the building itself.
Again, a similar shot. This is actually access to the second floor units.
And then we have another picture here just to give an idea of what the commercial
component could look like, taking advantage of providing -- actually, can you go to the picture --
that one's mostly just trees.
What you're secing here -- that's good, thank you. What you're seeing here is there would be
-- you'd have your commercial component here, which could be offices, small minor neighborhood
related retail components. And then above that you have apartment units, either rental or ownership.
One of the things we like about having a mix -- in a mixed use and a traditional
neighborhood desil,,'l1 concept is that by having units above, you don't -- that area doesn't shut down
at 5:00. You have people there all the time. So again, you're increasing the security, you're giving it
more life, you're giving more things lor the residents to do in allowing them to kind of go around
tile neighborhood. It really -- you know, the key component is livability and walk-ability, and
allowing -- giving people kind of a neighborhood that they can walk around and through and get to
know their neighbors. We lind that that, you know, is one of the things that makes these plans
successful is that people tend to interact more often with people as opposed to other types of
apartment buildings where you tend to park, go into your unit and not see anybody.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do me a favor, would you put up tile site plan again?
MR. POLAK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is a representation of the ground tloor?
MR. POLAK: This -- yes, ycs.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the only commercial is that white area that you're
talking about?
MR. POLAK: There -- currently what we're showing right now, we have a commercial
component here and a commercial component here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what's the square f()otage of that?
MR. POLAK: I believe it's somewhere between 13 and 14,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason I'm bringing that up is for the mixed use
concept of that, you know, we had kind of higher hopes than that. I mean, 45,000 square feet is what
we were setting as a cap. Thirty-live is what you're capping your application. But providing 15, 16
is not exactly fultilling the other halfofthe traditional neighborhood, which is the commercial.
MR. POLAK: Well, I think there's a couple of issues here speci1ic to this site that make that
number ambitious. One ofthe reasons is really very -- we don't have the access here to County Barn
because of the intersection and the future widening of County Barn. So it turns that eommercia!--
you know, the idea o I' bringing in a commercial component where people Irom outside are going to
have ease in getting inlo the site makes it very difficult to promote that at that particular intersection.
So thc mixed use here is more of a live/work mixed use idea in that you could live here and
you could also work here and promote that, as opposed to trying 10 promote a large number. It
would be ideal ifthat would be possible to get a higher number. I don't know -- and in fact, Mr.
Goldmeier can probably speak to that. But I don't know how realistic it would be with the -- given
the fact of the access to the commercial sitc from Davis and jrmn County Barn.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Both of those roads are pretty major arterial roads, yet
you're putting housing right up at the comer where most banks would die to have their branch
situated. So what's the logic of putting in -- and I hope the answer's not that's the affordable housing
up there.
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 53 of 407
MR. POLAK: No, the idea here was that we tried to tUI11 the commercial component
inward to support the balance ofthe site. Because as I said beflJl"e, that although it would be ideal to
havc a bank on this COl11er, the fact is is that getting into that bank is not going to be possible.
Access to that bank would have to occur all the way down here, and typically that's not very good
filr banks that -- trying to get there, you cither have to get there from here or you have to eircle
around and get there fi'om -- I believe that's about I ,SOO feet down Davis Boulevard, which I think
is one of our closest cuts because of the Davis Boulevard intersection.
And Davis is a divided road. so you'rc only picking up traffic hcading east on that. So that's
one of the reasons why, although it seems like an ideal commercial parcel, access to that parcel is
very limited.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, you know, we're limiting other parcels that same
way.
Did you -- so essentially the only commercial you have here is what you feel would be
supported by this --.
MR. POLAK: That's what we arc -- we've done a lot of"different kind of ideas with this.
This was -- this is one of the concepts that we were working on that we've developed. And I think
part of that development had to do with some takings of some land f(lr casements and for buffer
areas.
So ulis is a (sic) option. It's not obviously thc final option or -- but it is a option to consider.
COMMISSIONER SCllIFFER: I mean, let's not hang here. I can talk a lot about some of
that, but let it go.
CIJAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. no, I've got a question.
I f you never really intended to do commercial but only as a convcnienee fllr the units inside
the devclopment, which is minor. and you even said it was going to be a convenience store, why
dIdn't you pursue a liMP amendment tor the amount of commercIal square tl)()tage you wanted,
even going so far as dividing it up into one section. saying you wanted 10.000 square feet possibly
Illr a grocery store. when you never really seems like (sic) you intended to use any of that?
MR. POLAK: I'm going to allow Mr. Goldmeier.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Barry (ioldmeier. representing the developer.
This was a process. We recognize the same elements that Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Strain
pointed out, that this was a prime corner. However, when we began the -- and that was our intention
originally. But when we began dealing with the right-ol~way department and fllUnd out that we had
to locate our entrance I think 1.300 feet ti'Ol]} the intersection 01" ('ounty Barn and Davis in the
residential portion and we could not have a direct access intu the commercial portiun, that we were
!{)l-ccd to have a shared access with the commercial -- with the Baptist church next door. this
became less of an attractive commercial situation.
So what we did was we responded to those limiting tilctorS by having a mixed use project
that would be 1110re or less self~contained within the spirit of" a traditional neighborhood design
project rather than a commercial project and a residential project.
Now, as liu. as why it was divided up into two sections, that was at the request of planning
stalL It was not our idea. This project was one 13-acre project with one application, one, you know,
environmental study. one trame study. et ectera. But staff gave us some rationale as to why they
insisted on having a different designation t(l\' the commercial project than the residential project.
And we just li)lIowed their n the request.
But it was not intended to diflerentiate the project in any way as beil,lg a different -- entirely
different project as some may now contend.
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 54 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're an experienced developer.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At what point along the road did staff infonn you that your
entranceways were going to be such that they are to a point where you realized it wouldn't be good
commercial?
MR. GOLD MEIER: I think it was -- was it in 2006, Robert? It was -- at that time the
right-of-way department was planning an expansion of County Barn Road. They had -- they were in
the -- they were in the design process. They were not complete with the design process, so it was a
work in progress. And as I said, this thing evolved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason I'm bringing this up is because in 2004 when
you applied, you knew thcn that the entrance had to be on the church's -- sir, I have a master plan
from your application right here whcn you tirst applied for it. It's done by Coastal Engineering, it's
dated 4/23/04. It's elose to what the master plan is you're using now, and it was part of the adoption
package given to us.
MR. GOLDMEIER: 111enl stand corrected.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then again, it goes back to my original question: If you
knew that this was a ditlicult cntry for commercial, why would you go for so much commercial
under the premise to us that you wanted to have a mixed use process that we envisioned as what we
have always expected to be, likc Mercato and others where you have a mix ofresidential above and
below and side by side with thc commercial, when in this case you're basically putting a
convenience store in with apartment housing.
And I'm just wondering wherc the change camc. Because that's not Ihe way this was
conceived, or at least it doesn't appear to be the way that it was presented to us back in '04 and 'OS.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, what happened was we -- when we had our initial meeting with
stafl to prepare till' zoning, lor a zoning application, we had prcscntcd them with the oppOliunity to
build a traditional neighborhood design community, which we had done elscwhere in the state and
which we thought would bc vcry wcll received in this market.
And we were infixmed by statlthat they had a newly enactcd traditional neighborhood
design li"iendly statute that ineluded hoth a commercial and a residential component, and ll1at we
should tailor our projeclto fit the -- that recently passed statute.
So we tried to take our traditional neighborhood design concept and tit it into the statute
that we wanted to follow. And that's how it evolved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I know that part of the density calculation for this
properly -- or at least evcn for the -- I think it's till' boll1 sides of the property was the fact you're
going to have what we \vcre presented as a bona flue Inixed use project with up to 45,000 square
feet of commercial. And that's not what we're seeing here. Yeti still think you're utilizing the
bonuses, or possibly you are -- and I'm sure that I'll hear more on that as the meeting goes on -- that
were created as a result ofthe intention of doing the mixed use that we thought you were intcnding
to do back in '04 and '05.
MR. GOLDMEIER: You are COlTect. And that was held out to us as a reason to apply under
-- you know, to tit our project to the already existing statute. And -- but what we've li1und out as the
project developcd and the entranceways became sct in stone, that it was less -- trom a market point
ofvicw less attractivc.
And also we also became aware at some point that the parcel at the comer of Santa Barbara
and Davis Boulevard, which is very elose by, was being developed fill' major retail usage. And that
would SOli ofremove the appeal trom a retail point of view. And we had looked fix the -- we had
Aqencla Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 55 of 407
looked toward the protCssional ollices, which were being developed to the west on Davis Boulevard
just down -- you know, down the road, and were being well absorbed at that time as a model rather
than a strict rctail model.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, Davis and Santa Barbara is a long-standing activity
center --
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so the commercial was always going to go in there.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you've done with 22 acres here, especially in the plan that's
in ti-ont of us now as one conccpt that has bcen prcscnted, you'rc more or less a residcntial
community with some commercial, convenience commercial tllr the community as a typical PUD
might be.
And I'm just wondcring, you went to great length to go in a dim:rent direction that you
endcd up being in a dircction that was prohably a lot simplcr. And I'm just sUlvriscd at it. And I
don't understand all the reasons why it wcnt that route. And I'm sure before the day's over we mighC
understand more.
MR. GOLDMEIER: It was an evolution that wasn't our original intent. I can show you
drawings in which wc had the 35,O()() square feet. But it bccame increasingly -- we became
increasingly awarc that it was less attractivc as a retail location than the Santa Barbara location, and
that it would be -- we should orient it more toward a professional ottlee situation tium a market
standpoint, and that's thc cvolution that took placc.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Any others on this matter belllre we go back to the architect, I guess.
Ms. Caron')
COMMtSSIONER CAI{UN: I !lave a questllln.
So thc commercial that you are planning on here is to be oflicc'!
MR. POLAK: As a potential usc it could be onicc. It would bc, you know, neighborhood
related retail uses. whether n you know. whether you would have n I use the tenll -- I don't want to
say a dry cleaner. I mcan a dry c1cancr in the sense that you wouldn't have actual dry cleaning going
on there. but it could be a n a dry cleaner l'<luld be there also. You know. hmdamental uses like that
that the residents would be able to take advantage or
You could have a small n vou know. I don't know if you'd have a small eafe of some sort,
ice cream or some smt or use like that. But. you know. vour predominantly small neighborhood
retail type uses. That's why we see more of a. vou know, insurance agentlrealtor/attomey/designer
type of use \vhere it's 110t so Sltc specifIc !()!" \valk-up traffic.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It delinitely looks like instcad ofa genuine mixed use project
we're getting a couple little strip malls stuck insiJe this PUD. this residential PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While you're up there. sir. the h in the commercial parcel or the
parccl that was supposed to bc commercial, thc very south end or it that abuts that out-parcel, you
show a dri\'cway going out to Cuunty Barn Road.
MR. POLAK: Ycs, that's n you know. that is inaccurate. Basically I think what Robert was
showing on the PUD plan where thc actual entry is actually down -- is happening down here. It's a
shared access plan with thc church.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. POLAK: That's thc actual connection that's -- we'rc showing it here. It's actually
happening -- it's actually going to happcn down hcre adjacent to the church.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 56 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're the architect, so--
MR. POLAK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so you're not nccessarily the land planner. The land planner is
the other fellow?
MR. POLAK: We've been working together on this for several years, so we've sort of been
working hand-in-hand dcveloping that, along with the environmental issues that have come up on it
also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because wc have -- I'm sure -- I have more questions and I
know some others might.
Are you guys done with your presentation then at this point and ready for questions?
MR. POLAK: Sure, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. PRITT: I do want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to come to themic, Mr. Pritt. You know that probably
better than I do.
MR. PRITT: Yes, I'd like to have Ted Treesh, traffic cnginccr, come forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. PRITT: There are just a couple of issues that have come up lately and I would like him
to address those.
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have the spelling of your name, please.
MR. TREESH: T-R-E-E-S-l-I.
For the record, Ted Treesh with TR Transportation Consultants, just briefly.
I know there were somc questions raised and discussions previously, and I just wanted to
make a few points.
Our analysis was completed utilizmg thc shopping center land use code Jor the trip
generation ofthe retail uses, and we do in fact feel that's a worst casc analysis for this facility, based
on the proposed schedule uses that are ineluded. Shopping ccnter land uses are a very diverse group
of land uses that are ineluded in the ITE trip gcncration rep0l1 that includes out-parcel uses; for
instance, fast foods, gas stations, convenience storcs that might be on out-parcels of shopping
centers, ol'whieh this parcel does not have.
As you can see Ji'om the plan, there's no -- gas stations are specifically prohibited from the
site plan, as are fast food.
So we feel the trip generation in terms of the retail uses were perhaps over-analyzed in this
analysis, but in any case a worst case impact.
Also, the report that was prepared \vas dated back in February of'()8. Since that tilne, the
new AUIR has been put out and the volumes on Davis havc dropped just about six and a half
percent since that time. County Bam is right about the same as it was when we first analyzed it back
in '07. So I just wanted to put that on the rccord that the volumes have decreased.
There wasn't allY capacity issue on Davis in our analysis.
The analysis did show futurc dcficiencies on County Barn, but what we did in the
supplemental analysis that was submitted to the county was looked at the impacts that the four-lane
extension of Santa Barbara would have. That project's currently under construction.
Basically what that will do is provide parallel reliefto this two-lanc segment of County
Bam, providing a new j()ur-Iane facility that would extend south of Davis down to Rattlesnake. And
again, that segment is currently under construction.
Our analysis, looking at thc modeling of how traffic would shift when that new roadway
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 57 of 407
opens, indieatcs that County Bam will be -- there will be capacity available on County Barn to
aceommodatc this project, but we do have conditions in our zoning that accommodate both of those
projects, both the widening of Davis as well as the Santa Barbara extension.
That's really all I had to otTer, and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions either
now or at the conelusion of our presentation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of transportation at this time?
Mr. Schiffer')
COMMISSIONER SCH IFFER: Y cs. In your negotiations with transportation, they would
not allow you a right-in/right-out on Coullty Barn Road?
MR. TREESH: Not between the church access and Davis, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they would not allow you thc same thing anywhere
until you hit that interscction that you show"
MR. TREESH: On Davis"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, on Davis.
MR. TREESH: Da\isis a Florida DOT roadway, so we have to meet their access spacing
standards. But I don't believe there was anything asked !(lr on Davis in bctween County Barn and
that access that's currently shown. Ifthere was. I'm not aware of it. Perhaps another member ofthc
team would be able to address that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So maybe there could have been a right-in/right-out up
closer to the mixed use area. The lake is man made. so --
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: WclL Ihllll a traflic spacing standpoint, did the FDOT standards
allow a point closer than the one on Davis Boulevard limll County Bam Road that you currently
show" I think that's the crux of the question being asked.
MR. TREESII: I'd havc to deter to your transportation staffon the exact spacing standards.
I haven't iooked recently what they are on Davis, but on what n it dcpends on what access
management class that roadway has been c1assificd as FDOT.
CHAiRMAN STRAIN: Okay. WelL I'm sure we'll get John Pod n John up here. I can't
hardly say his last name. but wc'll get Johll up herc at the timc staff presentation is n anybody else
havc allY questions ofthe applicant's transportation engineer at this time?
(No responsc.)
MR. TREESH: ThanK you.
CHAiRMAN STRAIN: No, don't go away. I've got several. I hold olltilllast and let
everybody c1se ask first.
Your usc of the shopping ecnter code. that sets a certaill levcl of serviec component f(lr
traffic. Evcry tIme you use one of those codes it gives you a different OUtCO!llC. The fact you could
have a 21J.OOO squarc tilllt tl'Ccstanding shopping n or gl'llecry store, b~'()ccry store has a much higher
intense traffic component than the g20 ealeg(JI'Y t(lr a shopping center docs. Is that a fair statement?
MR. TRU'SH: I haven't speeijically looked at a 20.000 slJuare l(lOt grocery store to be able
to answcr that. Most I(Hlel stores that I work Oil. I'ublix. Albertson's, Imcan, thcy'rc 70, gO, 90,OOIJ
squarc fect. I don't know what it is on a 20.000.
But typically you are correct, a standalonc grocery store would generate more trips than a
shopping cellter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
You had n in your TIS you used 35.000 square teet.
MR. TREESH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You used it under the shopping center category. And today we're
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 58 of 407
finding out we're basically going to have a convenient store and maybe possibly some others on this
one concept the plan had.
So you wouldn't necessarily need 35,000 square feet. But at the time you used the 35,000
square feet, your daily trips were 5,000, reduced by intelllal capture and some pass-by, so a net of
3,520 external trips.
MR. TREESH: ll1at's con'ect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this property wasn't n doesn't function for that kind of traffic
because ofthe eommercial-- to support the commercial that 3,520 trips would have supported, why
did you even do this TIS in that manner?
MR. TREESH: I have to do the TIS consistent with thc application.;
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we're finding out the application, even though it said
they're requesting 35,000 or 38, whatever the number is, they're only going to be using a
substantially less amount. So that would correspondingly lower your daily trips and everything else.
MR. TREESH: If that's the way it was ultimately developed, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you look at thc entrance access through the church's property?
MR. TREESH: We looked at it in tenllS of the assignment of trips and the analysis of that
intersection in that manner in terms of this analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the stacking capabilities, the tUllling radii and thc
width ofthe lanes and the number ofJanes, both len-hand turn and right tUlll on thc church's
property, did you check to see what sizing and capacity that arca would have to take in order to
accommodate the 3,520 extelllal trips going into that property')
MR. TREESH: At this stage of our analysis in the zoning, no, we do not look at those
dctailed issues. Those are issues we look at at the site development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you given the graphic of the easement for that church's
property to look at'!
MR. TREESH: No, I was given this graphic that's on the visualizer, the mastcr coneept
plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Anybody elsc have anything of the transportation -- the applicant's transportation engineer?
(No responsc.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. TREESH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we can go back to the other -- the applicant's presentations.
Does anybody have any questions from either the architect or the planner in rcgards to the
PUD dOCUlnent or the rest of the issues f!\H11 the applicant's perspective?
(No responsc.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a few of the planning side of it. Let's start with tbe
PUD. In your Exhibit A is where I'll be working fi'om.
MR. ANDREA: For the record, Robert Andrea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2, undcr 8, section 1.2, numbcr threc. It says --number three
rcads, allowablc commcreial uses pel111itted by right and conditional usc approval in thc commercial
mixed use component shall be limited to those uses permitted in C- I, C-2 and C-3.
The language approved by thc Growth Managemcnt Plan under A-5 says, allowable
eonmlercial uscs and commercial component shall be limited to those uses permitted in the C-I, C-2
and C-3 zoning district, as contained in the Collier County Land Development Code.
Those uses permitted. Conditional uses are a penllitted use. And I'm just wondering why--
Agenda lIem No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 59 of 407
how is that consistent with the GMP?
MR. ANDREA: I believe that was just put in there as the LDC reads, that if someone were
to apply tor a conditional use that is pennitted as a conditional use in C-l, 2 and 3, that it would be
-- they would be able to apply for that conditional use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope Mr. Weeks is making notes, because I'll have to ask him
why the interpretation of the GMP n why the GMP says very specifIc that it would be the pennitted
uses in C-I, 2 and 3, and if then the conditional uscs can be allowed. But I'll wait and collect my
numbers ofquestions !(lr him then.
The last part of that, it says, unless otherwise provided in this section. That again is
inconsistent with the GMP language. It's very speeitie; it's C-I, 2 and 3.
And then if you get into the othcr scctions that you have thcre, it says 3-A. And then 3-A, B
and C read the same way in the bcginning p'1I1s. It says, commercial, professional and general office
district in effect at the time of the SDP approval. And those same languages occur in cach one of
those.
Y ct in the GMP it says, the zoning districts as contained in the Collier County Land
Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, in effect as of the datc of adoption of the sub-
district. Orclinallce No. 2005-25, adopted June 27th, 2005.
I'm not sure if that's the same as what you're trying to say here. Because one says in effect at
the time "fthe SDP and the other says in ctfeet at the time of the adoption of your sub-district.
And I'll have to ask David Wceks his opinion on that. I'm sure that you probably don't have
-- that's just boilerplate language ti'om your perspective.
MR. ANDREA: 'Yeah, to be honest. it's been worse so much over the years that at one point
it was being viewed f()J' consistency n or redundancy. rather -- with the LDC. So a lot oflanguage
has been moved around and taken out so we wouldn't get redundancy. Ilow it eame to be this
particular way. I honestly don't remember at tillS pomt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about under your accessory uses, under B on Pagc 3.
B-4, you talk about recreational uses. And most of them are typieal things. pretty passivc.
Then you get to olle callcd the band shcll stage. That produces a lot of noise. And that will
bc heard probably down to the activity eentcr.
Where do vou think you're going '0 put this band shell stage"
MR. ANDREA: Agaill, I believc it was originally put in the there when the original concept
of the PUD came along and they wanted the llcxibilitv to be able to have neighborhood functions
and create something in a little park arca.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure bcf,'rc this is over today wc'lI probably explore that a little
lnurc. Thank vou.
Ms. Camn')
COMMISSIONER CARON: Since he brought it up, where is the little park area?
MR. ANDREA: They would be -- well. again, with the other concept, up thcrc by the
community center would bc one. And to bc honest with you, I don't know where the other ones are
now. Around the lake.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 5, your Exhibit B, development standards, how are
these units being sold? You've got a series of townhouse, multi-family and e1ubhousc, recrcational
buildings. Are they ICe simple or are they condo: do you know?
MR. ANDREA: I believe both. We're doing both n condo') Condos.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your minimum floor area. ClOO squarc feet? I don't know of
many projects I've ever seen eomc through Collicr County with ClOO square feet. Do you know of
Agenda ttem No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 60 of 407
any others?
MR. ANDREA: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's not much bigger or about the same size as a two-car
garage.
MR. ANDREA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't typical to Collier County. Would those be the affordable
units; is that what you're aiming for?
MR. ANDREA: I don't believe so. A small one bedroom unit is what the architect tells me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, small's the right word. It's not a very comforting thought to
think we're going to be introducing 600 square foot units. I don't know how that's really compatible
with other projects in Collier County. But I'm sure we'll -- I'll ask staff about that.
From your -- there's a minimum yards. It says from MPUD boundaries, 10 feet. And that's
whcre you can have your principal structures. Can you show me on this plan where the MPUD
boundaries are that you're rcfen'ing to? I think I understand. but I'd like to know where you think
you can be 10 feet back from. All your extelllal boundaries?
MR. ANDREA: It would be the extemal boundaries. And basically as this plan sees, there's
no 10 fect there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. But the ability for you to put it thcrc for a thrcc--
wcll, let's see, the height is going to be -- could be 55 fcet and 65 actual. So you want to put at
65-f(lOt building 10 fect off of Davis Boulevard and County Balll Road?
MR. ANDREA: Well, it wouldn't be 10 feet out. We'd still have our -- actually, now I look
at it, it's -- but wc'd still havc our butler arcas that we have to contend with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to gct to the buffers, because I don't agrce with
your butfcrs either. But let's just keep on thIS. This says you could havc a building 65 feet high, 10
feet olTofDavis Boulevard. Now, is that what your intentions are?
MR. ANDREA: It said from external roadways would be 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but see where it says minimum yards extelllal from MPUD
boundaries, 10 feet?
MR. ANDREA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're -- where are you talking about? You must be far ahead of
me.
MR. ANDREA: Just above that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right above that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, the 20 feet's still a disaster.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, so is the 10 feet. I didn't mean -- now we're in conflict,
because one is in contlict with the other. But on your -- you've got preserves on two sides of your
project so you don't need thc 10 or thc 20 fcet therc.
On the south side facing the church you've got a butfer requiremcnt there that is greater
than -- I know your plan says 10 feet but I think you've misconccived the -- or misread our
landscape buller requiremcnt, so we'll talk about that. But I think you'rc going to necd at least 20
fcet there. And thcn to have a 65-f~lOt building that close, even at 20 feet.
Wc just got done discussing a Target in here not too long ago that was going to be less
height than this and wc wouldn't allow it on a six-lane U.S. 41 in East Naples. I don't know how we
would think this is practical for an application in this particular program you're producing here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark?
Agenda ttem No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 61 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer'!
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, they run it through the center of the building,
which is even more confusing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Explain that to me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, look, the MPUD boundary. In othcr words, what
they're saying is that the boundary between the --
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --mixed use and the residential is a I O-foot setback, but
it's running right through the center ofthc unit.
So I don't think -- first of all, I don't think that setback's necessary, but I do think we should
f()eus on the 20 feet on the property line.
MR. GOLD MEIER: Mr. Strain, can I clarify one point you were just asking? And that was
about the 65-loot tall building within that setback.
This is something that we j()und ourselves pushed into by staft's interprctation of somc of
the elements of the PUD. Because one of start's intcrpretations is.thatifi.vc're going to obtain a
mixed use bonus. we havc to utilize the entirc amount of that bonus in the commercial portion of the
project. That means it would be I I I units on a live acre site, one acre of which being a lake, forcing
us into a tall and dense solution, \vhich we do not want to go into and which is not what we're trying
to demonstrate on that plan.
But if statl's interpretation is adhercd to, then that leads us to all of these other requests.
CIIAIRIvlAN STRAIN: Well, sir, Imcan, there's a lot of options available to you to offset
the concerns of staff And I'm not sure the concerns of stafr arc interpretcd in the same manner that
you've just said them, based on their findillgs -- thcir understanding. But wc'lI cel1ainly tind out later
today.
I think there arc other optlollS that you could havc gOllc to. and we'll Just have to, as the day
goes Illlward, explore those.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going to have a scrious eoneelll, at least me as one
member ot'this panel. with the setbacks you stated there. So befl)re the meeting's over, I would
suggest to you that we will be providing somc standards that might be a lot morc appropriate.
MR. ANDREA: Okav.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The minimum yards intcrnaL can you tell me how that zero f(lOt
(j'ont yard !its? Show me on this plan, t,)r cxample, wherc that would apply.
MR. ANDREA: For accessory strueturcs, youmcan"
C!-L\!R\1AN STR,A.!N: Nn, \\'C1IT on principal structures. And our mininlum yard's
internal. Says millimum yard /.cro ket f()r a townhouse and zcro fect f()r multi-tamily and zero feet
1(1I' c1ubhouscircereational building.
I'm trying to tigllrc out wherc and h"w that applics. Zero ICct wherc? You're going to have
no setback')
MR. ANDREA: Again, that was done f(lr llexibility in the original desi!,'ll to bring the
buildings eloscr to the road. The other --
MR. POLAK: Currently "n the graphic that's up thcre, thc setbacks from the sidewalk arc
between 10 and 15 t'eet to the main -- the principal part of the building. Ten-aces may in fact infringe
upon inside that setback, but the principal building itself would be between 10 and 15 feet set back
li'om the sidcwalk.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: So the roads would be -- because it's a condo thcy won't be platted,
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 62 of 407
but they will be then a common area to the condominium?
MR. POLAK: Yes. If it was a condo, yes, that would be the case.
The intention there from a design standard was to set the principal part of the building back
from what we call the common sidewalk area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a reference that's missing. When it said zero, I
can't tell where you're talking from. And if it's from the ending ofthe COlmnon area, that includes
the roadway parking -- well, is there any parking spaces in front?
MR. POLAK: There are parking -- there is parking --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Parallel parking.
MR. POLAK: -- on the street. Thcre's parallel parking on the street.
The street section you're looking at there, you -- from the center line of the street, you're
probably, you're looking at a 1 O-foot drive lane with a gutter with probably an eight or nine-foot
wide parallel parking lane, a curb, a Jive-foot sidewalk, and then the beginning of what would be the
setback area or green spacc back to the building, anywhere between 10 and 15 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the zero would actually be a setback from the edge of the
common area, which would include the sidewalk, thc parking spaces and the roadway; is that
con'ect?
MR. POLAK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe an asterisk identifying where the zero measurement
comes ti'Om would be more appropriate.
The same with the side yard -- go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSION ER SCH IFFER: Just one thing, Mark. Should we deal with these now? I
know we want to come back. But if they're saying they've got IOta 15 feet, why don't we just
change that, gct their agreement now and move on and be comfortable with it? Or are we going to
come back and try to remember all thcsc thmgs?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. I mean, I was going to get through -- I wanted to
get stan's opinion on some of thcsc as well, but I don't mind detailing it out now, Brad, if we can
save time.
Based on his comments, what would that zero -- well, sce, Brad, what I'm suggesting is, is
zero feet is acceptable if it's to the edge of the common area that includes the sidewalk, parking
spaces and roadway. So then they would just need an asterisk identifying where the zero feet comes
ii'om, where the zero feet is measured from.
COMMISSIONER SCH IFFER: So essentially what you're saying, you'd be comflll1able
with a unit right on the sidewalk. In other words, that could bc a fi'ont porch, it could be -- but
there'd be no yard whatsoever.
MR. POLAK: Well, you could -- in fact, you could have the front porch on the sidewalk.
That's not the intention, but you could have -- it could step back. You could have a wall, a small
wall area cnclosing it and then it could step back and have some green space. So the building could
get some movement popping in and out along thc -- wc'll call it the zcro foot setback.
It's not how we're showing it right now, but it's a potential possibility. We've done it in
some other projects where the terrace wall, if you will, is on the -- would be on the property line, tor
lack of a bcttcr term But it doesn't need to be.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And thc wall wouldn't be included in the yard dimension.
MR. POLAK: It would be in the yard dimension, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the eoncelTI I have is that what he's describing could
be 55 foot and then obviously thcre could bc elevator components higher rigpt on the sidewalk on
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 63 of 407
both sides ofthe road. I mcan, we have to imaginc worst case.
MR. POLAK: Yeah, that is n that's not even -- that's like a nightmare. So yeah, you're
correct, the way it would be worded now would n I think it needs to be worded a little bit better.
CIIAlRMAN STRAIN: When we got to the height, Brad, my next n I mean, I certainly
have questions about the hcight. Thcy're limitcd to three stories. 55 feet gets you a heck of a lot
more than three storics. So I don't know why you need 55 feet, because that dictates your actual
height, which is 65 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But even a three story building on both sidcs that close.
And csscntially this is the roadway that since it is a mixcd use somebody could be visiting that shop
or that architect's oftlee and driving down that road to get up on Davis. So it's essentially a public
aeecss to Davis Ii'om the littlc --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, this is f()rjust the R tract now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the R -- I mean, what -- isn't that -- it's a mixed use--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the only -- the R tract is the n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is not mixed use, but the roadway's connected, I mean, is
there going to bc a gatc to not let the people out ofthc mixcd use'! No.
MR. POLAK: No.
COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: Anyway. And then I think the other thing is we really have
to discuss how close wc wunt to let somebody build a house to Davis Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree with you. I'm pointing all these out because they need
to be thought about, they need to be discussed, they need to be resolvcd. But at the same timc we've
got a lot of other issues to go through on this projeet today.
I'm not sure wherc this whole thing was headed. I mean, we could spend hours working on
all these various standards and still not come to a conclusion on the balance of the project that's
morc nllportant alld end up wastIllg a lot 01 tnllc until we get through the whole discussion today.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we'll comc back later and walk through thc PUD?
CHAIRMAN STR/\lN: Irthere's -- irthis thing gets to a point where it's starting to work
through all the analysis we have to ha\T on the density and all that, then we may want to spend
more time on this to try to lille tUlle it in the 1'''111 or a stipulation. But I'm just trying to put
every1hing on the tablc that's problematic. And then when we get into discussions with staff and
other people, thcy can at least express their concerns about the things that have been pointed out.
That's where I'm going with this.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm good. As long as we come back, and wc
traditionally do walk page by pagc. I'll be happy.
C!!A!R!\,t^.N STRAIN: '0/c!!. ! \vas going to do that \viih the applicant as we traditionally
do right now, but no (lne c1se had questions. so I was going into mine. If you want to--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFI:'R: No, IlO. no. no. Ifthis is not the walk-through, I'll keep
quiet.
CllAlRMAN STRAIN: WclL it was.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hrad. we nonllally. when the applicant makcs a presentation, we
ask all our in-depth qucstions at that time. The only thing I haven't gone into is f(JCusing on how to
correct all this until we hear what the density resolution's going to be. 111at's the only thing I was
holding ojfon. If that isn't something -- if you want to go into it IUI1her, go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: Well. as long as we eome back. I mcan, I don't want to
walk away from, f()l' example, the setback on Davis. But we'll come back. Let's hear everybody,
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 64 of 407
you're right, we'll come back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your side yards, could you describe to me how your zero foot side
yards fit in? And let's put that other plan back up as a concept for discussion. I understand it's just
one concept plan, it's not your final, but it is a little more easier to talk from than a bubble plan.
Your side yards of zero feet, how would you apply thosc'> You're a condo, so that means
you don't need the lee simple separation of a property line, so you don't need distance between
structurcs like a -- like internal structures where you have a four-plex or something like that, you
just need separation between buildings. And you're looking at zero feet between buildings?
MR. POLAK: Well, the separation between the buildings, what would drive the separ -- for
example, what's going to drive the separation between this building and this building is going to be
drivcn by the building code is going to drive it. TIle fire rating rcquired between those buildings is
going to drive that. So you're looking at anywhere from 15 to 30 feet, depending on the type of
construction for that building.
I think maybe a more -- a better way oflooking at it from a traditional neighborhood design
is hO\vlongdo you want a building to be before you want to put a break in it. And then what do you
want that distance of that break to be is probably a better way of wording that.
And I'd have to take a look at the plan again but, you know, I think our long -- I think this
building here -- well, probably could use a -- this is probably 400 JCet, I think here. I think these are
-- we have a break here. So I mcan, there's an opp011unity to provide a -- set a standard as to where
you want to occur n you know, a maximum distance on thc length ofthe building.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever designed a projeet like this in Collier County
bet(lre'!
MR. POLAK: Like this in Collier County, no. No, I have not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because your standards are real hard to follow. And maybe
-- and J don't mean to keep badgering with my questlons, but I've got to understand this myself in
order to understand how to go through the day.
MR. POLAK: I think kind of how we worked it is we were I guess trying to adopt the
standards, kind of a working back and fOl1h to try to get it. So what I'm really trying to do is to I
guess convey to you some of the principles that we use when we design with traditional
neighborhood design concepts in mind, some of the kind of the rules of thumb that we typically use
when we go through that process. So trying to assist in that kind of looking at it from another
perspective as to see how wc eould address to make surc, you know, you're kind of getting, you
know, what you think you want or what the intention is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, bef()re the day's over, wc'lI probably come back and visit all
these standards. I just want to get it noted now so that when staff and others come up, they'll know
where the questioning's been f()eusing on and we'll hear some rcsponsc to it.
Your minimum rear yard -- well. first of all, your minimum side yard is zero feet. I don't
believe that's a practical way to reference it. so at some point we'll have to come back and figure that
out.
I don't -- as a Planning Commission member, I don't rely on the vertical building standards
to dictate distances between buildings or separations. Those are a different sct of codes reviewed by
a diffcrcnt board. Wc have to look at it fi'om a planning perspective, and our development standard
tables set thc codes that we abide by, as does the LDc.
The minimum rear yard offive tCet, where is that five tCet measured from? Let's take the --
well, your parking spaces, for example, where would you measure that five feet from?
MR. POLAK: I think in this particular, in the plan that we're showing now, we don't really
Agenda Item No SA
December 14. 2010
Page 65 of 407
have a rcar yard idea here. What you have is you have units that ti'ont both the street and also front
the parking area.
And you have a similar situation here where you would have a sidewalk and a setbaek from
that pm1ieular building. So there's really not a rear yard concept in this pat1icular layout that you're
sceing here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in this layout you would -- if you were to go into an SDP with
this one here at Collier County, you would argue you don't have a rear yard, you've got two fronts.
And you would do that and your intcntion would be zero and zero, basically. Is that --
MR, POLAK: The way we addressed it with the front setback issue on how we are
addrcssing it would be thc same concept that we used hcre. How we get there, I'm not quite sure. I'll
dcfcr to Robert on that.
But in concept the idea was that we have units tronting -- we have units looking at the
parking area, we have units looking at the street, and we created a similar sidewalk situation here for
pedestrian connectivity that connects all the way through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So these units aren't cven through units, they're front and back
units. They're spl it in the middle.
MR. POLAK: There are some through units. The units on the corner are through units. And
then the townhouse units. actually as you go to the second tloor, the townhouse units in some
instances are through units. On the sceond floor units thcre's a variation of units.
So not all the units are through units and not all the units are not through units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in effect there's no back yards in any ofthesc units. I mean
useablc back yards. You'vc got -- if you have any -- I mean. you don't have any grass areas or a
place that could be put up where a tiunily could have a barbeeuc unit or small pool --
MR. POLAK: No, that would all bc part of the -- it would be part of the common area
concept there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all units in this project then would have to, for those type
of things, go over to that common area up on Davis Boulevard')
MR. POLAK: That's a potential area. Whether we could identify other areas throughout the
site, we haven't done that yet. I'm sure that as we get Ii.lrther along in the design we could identify
other areas that could be used f(,r common areas jll!' the rcsidents, whether it's a tot lot or a
pla:~/ground or a harbecue area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know. whcn you come into an area where you're trying to
introduce I think a j'lirly new e<lJleept in regards to the standards you're using, the more detail as to
the ti.mctionality and how it lits alld works. the better success ratc you may have. Because I'm
having -- I'm learning a lot as you're talking rcg:.lrds to !wv,' you laid this thing out. and it's quite
different than anythillg I've seen be1llre.
Anyway. I think the more detailed of study bc1lll'e today's meeting would have been more
of an advantage than a bubblc plan that we rceeived.
Lct's movc on down our list of issUL's on the setback table.
When you say the maximum yards internal. Maximum li'onts yard, 16 teet. Now where
would that apply" How does that tit into a plan like this','
MR. ANDREA: Thc explanation is number one thcre, Page 6.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still on Page 5 -- oh. I'm sorry, the explanation is on Page 6'1
MR. ANDREA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying this -- your intention is to movc the buildings
back and f(lrth, but ifthcy move back and I()rth, they'll move no IUl1her back than 16 feet?
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 66 of 407
MR. ANDREA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is thcre any rcgular -- is thcre any parking in front of these
buildings n well, yes, you do, now that we know the fronts are in the back. On your parking lots for
your parking spaces -- are th(;''l'e any garages on this property?
MR. ANDREA: No garages.
MR. POLAK: No garages.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wcll, I'll move past my 16-foot question, now that I--
MR. POLAK: The concept behind the 16-foot is so we kind of get unifonnity in how the
buildings n in setting the buildings back. So you're not setting buildings back 30 feet. It was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. POLAK: -- in order to allow movement in the building at thc same time. So that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. I just needed a little clarifying and you did that,
thank you.
The minimum distance between structures is I () feet. f believe -- most of the time we're
looking at half the sum of the building heights. You're looking at 10 feet between 65-foot buildings?
I know you nod your hcad ycs. Okay. Well, again, it's --
MR. POLAK: Well, I think what we're saying, a minimum there. And obviously the idea
thcre is that some buildings are -- you know, if they are smaller in scale, they're not 65 feet high,
that would sct a minimum.
Now, perhaps we need to set a maximum or set it to a standard on height. But the idea was
they wouldn't be any eloser than that. And in fact on that plan there, I believe we have them. I want
to say somewhere between 15 and 30. I don't have it right on the tip of my tongue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've got to look at this under the worst case scenario,
because we do have some people that would come in and try to build the worst case scenario and
thcn we're struck with it.
So my previous statement that thrce storics doesn't need 55 feet. How do you gct the 55 fect
for three stories? I mean, you're looking at cach story being almost 20 -- I mean 17 feet height high.
How are you doing tha(')
MR. ANDREA: Again, we were looking at the closest -- Ilext closest zoning language is
where that came ti'om, and the flexibility to do different pcaks in the roof line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would be under your actual height.
MR. ANDREA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why do you need a zoned height of 55 feet?
MR. ANDREA: Again, that was -- I believe that came initiated fi'OIn the next adjacent
zuning district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My coneem's going to be to keep you to three stories, and
logical three stories in regards to what hcight is. And I don't know how you can justify at this point
55 feet.
But again, I'll be talking to statf about that, and before the meeting's over we'll get to that
point.
Under your accessory structures, all the same eoneems from above apply there that we
already talked about. I'm not going to gct rcdundant; wc'll get into those fUl1hcr.
Your zoned and actual height tor accessory structures, what accessory structures will you
have on a project likc this? I mean, if you've got two hont yards, what are you going to put out front
that's an accessory structure?
MR. ANDREA: Again, when the PUD was originally created, it was to give the flexibility.
A[Jencta Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 67 of 407
At one point it did not look like this when we started this project. So again, that was put in there for
tIexibility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to Pagc 6. In your footnote one it says
buildings shall primarily ti-ont public right-ol~ways in order to create a sense of place in relationship
to the street.
What do you mean by that? I mean, bow do we measure primarily?
MR. ANDREA: I don't know. The dcsign ofthc concept here is you can see all the
buildings mostly do ti'ont the public right-of~ways, except where they do make the turns.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but your -- you have the ability in your language, tl'Om what
you described, to vary the front setbacks li'om zero to 16 feet, right?
MR. ANDREA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it really doesn't matter, if that's the way you want to build
it. But Ijust couldn't understand what tbe word -- how you determine what's primarily fronting
public right-of~ways. Because usually it's a distancc that halftbe building's going to ti-ont the public
right-{)f~way or so many lineal feet willli'onClbe public right-ot~way. But I'll let it go.
Under -- well, C, same kind of language, but it's fine architecturally.
Let's go to Page 7. All the same issues I just brought up on this development standards table
generally apply to this one here. I know it's got some commercial components, so it's a little
different. But I'm going to have the sume questions of statl as comparison to compatibility with all
the standards that are there.
On your master plan. I went through the bulTer requirements in the landscaping buffers that
arc shown on your master plan, and the one to the south by the church, you have a Type A. From
what I can determine, it takes a Type B, because your uses against an Estatcs zoning -- I know
therc's a church there, but the zoning is still Estates. Do you know why you've got a Type A or who
determincd it was at ype /\"
MR. ANDREA: Ycs, that was dctermined carlyon, probably -- well, a few years ago.
Tbe area there by the church. that originally was a IS-loot buffer, and it was switched to a
10. Through conversations with Nancy Gundlach, that it was dctermined that the church had enough
there in their preserve to compensate J(l!' the area that we needed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's liJl1ny. because they don't have preserve there, they
have a parking lo( So I'll talk to statr about that when thev get up here.
I'm just trying to get past my statfquestions to get into anv more that I have of you.
That's it I(l!' now.
Anybody else bave any linal questiolls ofthc applicant bel()re we start staff presentation')
(Nt) response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. ANDREA: Thank vou.
CIIAIRMAi'\ STRAli'\: By thc way, we gcnerally break J(,r lunch sometime between II :30
ami 12:00. So wc'lI see how much or stall section wc can gct through bcl()re we break for lunch and
\vc'll have to resume attenvards.
MS. DESELEM: Good mornillg. For the record. my name is Kay Deselem. I am a principal
planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
Witb me I have several staff members that will be addressing their eel1ain areas of
expertise, including David Wceks, who is the manager of eomp. planning. Corby Schmidt, who is
also a principal planner in eomp. planning. Susan Mason, who is working as part ofthe
environmental stall. John Podezerwinsky 1(11' transportation. And Frank Ramsey is also bere fi'OI11
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 68 of 407
housing, so he can help address any atIordable housing issues you might have.
Two things I wanted to mcntion. One was the fact that the artistic renderings that were
submitted today, just to -- you know, we've seen some. They were originally attached as part of the
PUD document. It was detemlined by the county attorney that was working on the project at that
time that it wasn't appropriate to include them because they weren't scaled, they weren't reviewed
for compliance with any code, they were just ideas of what could possibly be.
And so the ones that are submitted today are just that as well, they could possibly be what it
looks like, but it could possibly look different. So they may comply with code, they may not. We
don't know.
TIle same way with the option A that is currcntly on the visualizer, I have no idea if that
pm1icular document complies with the PUD regulations that they're proposing or that might get
adopted, or whether it complies with thc GMP requirements for this sub-district. And we've not seen
this plan, we haven't reviewed it, so I don't know what it might comply with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And Kay, I think I tried to make that clear. This is -- we -- I
was using that for a talking point trying to get an example of how their standards fit. I think they
said it was one of sevcral plans that they wcre going to try to come up with. It wasn't complete. And
that's -- I think all of us realize that. And I appreciate you making those statemcnts for the record, so
thank you.
MS. DESELEM: I just wanted to make that point.
Okay, for the record, you do have the staff record that's been submittcd. It is document
dated revised 4/28/09. It's a 24-page document. And I'll just hit the high points, since we have had
an extensive discussion from the applicant, that explains where the project is, description of the
project, who the agents are. Going on to Page 2 of the staff report it talks about the surrounding land
uses and zoning. And there is an aerial photograph. This has all been provided by the applicant as
weii.
Thc Growth Managemcnt Plan discussion bcgins on Page 2, identifying what sub-district
this is in. That's also been discussed by the applicant.
Corby Schmidt is prepared to make a presentation that will help explain the Growth
Management Plan issues f(lr this particular project, undcrstanding that that is a large part of the
dissention betwcen statr and the applicant.
Going on through the GMP analysis, you do havc the transportation's recommendations f(lr
the transportation element, and they do discuss the Davis Boulevard impacts, the County Barn Road
impacts, and the Santa Barbara Boulcvard impacts. And they discuss the mitigation that's been
agreed upon between staff and the applicant to bring this pm1ieular projcct into compliance and,
therefi)l'e, staff can recommend consistency for our recommended density tor the project, based on
the mitigation being provided.
There is a discussion also on Page 10 about the conservation and coastal management
element of this project and the recommendations as lar as eonsistcncy with the applicable elements
of that.
Environmental staff is recommending that the project be deemed consistent with the
CCME.
Staff provides a GMP conclusion on Page 12, noting that our particular recommendation
for this project has a consistency caveat in that we rcvicwed and our analysis shows a certain
amount of density is appropriate. We are holding that only our rceommendation can be found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
Statrhas also providcd you analysis from the other reviewcrs; again, environmental review,
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 69 of 407
transpOl1ation review. There is a bricf synopsis from utilities, and emergency management and
parks and recreation statI Those are on Page 13 of the staff report.
There is a synopsis trom housing revicw on Page 14 that talks about a waiver that's being
requested as a separate action that would be applicable to this project, should the board approve that.
Staff has provided a zoning review that looks at the findings of fact that would be required
by the Land Development Code, both lor a rezone pctition and f(lr a PUD petition, which this is.
These pm1icular tindings addrcss consistency with the goals and objectivcs and policies of
the GMP. And as I mentioned, staff is rceommending a certain pOl1ion of it be consistent, limited to
our review and analysis.
We have reviewed the existing land use pattelll. We believe that this projcct, as limited, will
be compatible with the surrounding area. Based in part because any other use other than a school
and a church are separated by two major roadways, County Barn and Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Staffhas also evaluatcd the possible creation of the isolated zoning district. We believe that
it will not. Wc have also provided an analysis of the cxisting district boundaries, bclieving that they
are logically drawn. ."
We've noted particularly that ehangcd or changing conditions do wan'ant this rezoning,
bascd on the fact as noted throughout in othcr sections as well that there is a specific sub-dishict
that's been adoptcd 1(11' this particular parcel in the rezoning to PUD in somc fashion as is proposed
today would bring the land more in compliance with that adopted sub-district than what the existing
Estates might be.
On Page 16, item number 17, as Jar as findings, talks about the increased tratlie. And again,
as staff has noted earlier, with the mitigation being provided and agreed upon by county staff, we
bclieve that this is consistent and should not create an excessivc increase in traffic or crcate
congestion.
(joing on to somc of thc more pertlllcllt thlllgs, tile others stlit belllg included, obviously, IS
Item No. 12 that talks about whether the proposcd change will constitute a grant of spceial privilege
to an individual owner. as contrasted with the gencral public.
Again. this gets into the idca of how vou calculate the dcnsity. And wc believe that if the
pctitioners' proposal of density wcre to bc adoptcd, that that could be construed to grmlt a special
privilcge. We bclicve that start\ is the correct rendition of how it should be intcrpreted.
Therc's other iindings of filct as lUr as the adcquatc public hleilities and services. That lalls
again into the mitigation that's being provided.
We have evaluated compatibility of tile proposed uses and wc believe it will be consistcnt,
again, going back to the Hlct that ally" other residential uses arc separated by Inajor roadways.
Finding number six un Page! l) talks about the titHing and sequence or developn1ent, and
there is a speeiiie condition as part of the transportation element that relatcs to timing. to whieh the
applicant has agreed upon. And this talks about the Santa Barbara extension, and that has to be
substantially complete bef(lre COs will be issucd l(lr this project.
On Page 20 of the stal'frcport is thc Environmental Advisory Council's recommendation.
This petition was heard on February 4th, 20tJl!, and rccommended t(ll' approval by a vote of 8-0.
And therc are conditions that they had askcd be included. those arc on Page 20, relating to
the sitc development plan or tinal plat/construction plans, asking that this project go back to the
EAC 1'01' approval to make surc that the hydrology of the preserve area is maintained or enhanced
and that the stormwater docs not discharge below the existing seasonal high water level.
Onl'age 21 it notes the inll>nnation contained in the sevcral neighborhood inJ()[)llation
meetings tllat this projcet has had.
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 20'10
Page 70 of 407
On Page 23 is the staff recommendation -- oh, I'm sorry. If I may, before that, related to the
neighborhood infonnation meeting, thcre have been two letters from surrounding property owners
that have been submitted. Those I have e-mailed to you. I do have them, if you'd like me to enter
them into the record. Plus there have bcen severallettcrs and e-mails going back and forth, as noted
earlier, ti'01n Andy Pires -- not Andy, Tony Pires, sorry about that -- and you have that, as far as I
know also.
Staff does have a reconunendation for approval. We are recommending that you approve
the rezoning, and its companion atfordable housing dcnsity bonus agreement, but subject to the two
things -- eithcr of two things must occur. 1110se arc on Page 23.
One: That the petitioner has to amend the PUD document and the affordable housing
density bonus ab'feement to reflect staffs interpretation of how the density should be taken care of in
this petition.
Or number two: The board makes a policy decision regarding some of the areas of
contention between statf and the applicant.
The only other thing staff would note, that two separate motions would be required for this
petition, because you are acting on a PUD rezone and an atl()rdable housing density bonus
agreement.
With that, I can address any specitic questions you have for me, but I think it would be
better to go on to Corby Schmidt's presentation, because he's going to go into the Growth
Management Plan analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAI N: No. Corby's going to take a lengthy period of time with a lot of
questions and answers. I don't want to start it before lunch, being dropped and then having forgotten
most of what happencd by the time we come back. So I would rather we focus on questions other
than that right now. We'll come back fi'om lunch and we'll t()CUS on Corby's.
Is that okay with everybody here')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of Kay. Go ahead, Mr. SehittL'-, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, anywhere in the code, is there any kind ofa threshold
that establishes when a mixed usc is a mixed use? Wc'vc had a conversation similar. Remember
how the open space requirements, if you have commercial on it f()l' residential arc different. And
sometimes people put a tiny bit of commercial, maybe a phone booth, and then they get the benefit
ofthat.
But is there anything that would establish ,my kind of a minimum as to when this becomes
mixed use'?
MS. DESELEM: I'm personally not aware orany. I would refer to either Ray or Susan, they
may have more inftmnatiol1 about the issue than I do.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, h)r the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager.
To be deemed a mixed use, you havc to havc uses allowed in commercial and residential
units. That is the two uses that it qualities a mixed use. There is no minimum square footage,
however, and that is something that has come up on several occasions in the past. Especially the last
one I remember was the one down in Goodland that had a postage stamp size commercial lot. But it
technically mct their criteria and was approved as a mixed use project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the best of your knowledge ami belief, this is a mixed
use --
MR. BELLOWS: COlTecl.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: n development within that mixed use area?
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 71 of 407
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ycah, Kay, going back to the criteria number I I, says
whether the proposed change will be a detelTcnt to thc improvcment or development of adjacent
property in accordance with existing regulations,
Because there now has to be shared access with this project and the church to the south, is
that any kind of dcterrent to thcm to be able to redevelop their propcrty, should they want to move
the entrance, t,.ll' cxample?
MS. DESELEM: Not to my knowledge. And therc is an agreement that's been accepted by
the church and the applicant to allow 1(,1' that joint aeecss. So I assume that they would have
evaluatcd their needs.
COMMISSION ER CARON: Okay. So they've essentially abdicated that situation, okay.
On the criteria in the sub-district, one of the criteria is t(lr there to bc parks.
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, ttlr thcre to be what"
COMMISSIONER CARON: A park.
MS. DESELEM: A park, ycs, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not seeing any park on this master plan anywhere. I mean,
I'm not seeing much on the master plan, Im;ght add, but n
MS. DESELEM: I might direct your attention to ironically almost where the arrows
pointing. There is an area that's shown as community ccnter. My understanding is that is the area
that is to function to meet thc park requirement.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So now in this county we're going to considcr a pool and a
clubhouse a park'! That's how we're goillg to define parks in this county"
MS. DI'SELEM: In this partlcldar II1stancc. t mcan, the park would not necessanly bc opcn.
It wouldll't be a neighborhood park that would be open to other people. And I don't think that's the
intent ofthc sub-district. I'm sure David Weeks is here and he can actually tcstify to the intent.
But I think the idea behind thc park is to requirc n or to provide some amenities f(lr the
pcrsons who may live here or work here, rather than to be a full-scale park, what we're accustomed
to that the county providcs. It's not anything that the county would run.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No. no, no, I'm not expecting it to be the water park. But
thcrc is a differencc betwcen a elubhouse and a pool. which is an amenity 1(,r the pcople who livc
there, and the park that was supposed to bc ineluded as part of this mixed use development.
I think they're two difi'ercnt things. II'stan's going to intcrpret it differently, I sure would
like to knc)\v.
MS. DESELEM: Wc didn't get into the speeilies as to what the park would provide, not
knowing what the age of the people might bc. what needs might be. Otlentimes that's something
that's dctermined by the developer.
I can speak to sometime in the past where Parks alld Rees has asked t(lr tot lots to be
provided wherein there isn't rcally any criteria that requires any developer to put in a tot lot. That
kind oflcaves it open-ended 1(,1' the developer, whomever that might be, to provide the amenities. It
would be most coveted by people that live in thc development.
For example, ifit were adults, it might be golf tee kind ofthings; or ifit had children, it
would be playground equipment.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that Ms. Caron's rei'eITing to a sentence on the gcneral
criteria in the GMP, and that's what makcs the ditTerencc. Thc tot lots and other issues that we have
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 72 of 407
stood against in a lot of ways because their exactions were the requirements that weren't in the LDC
for tot lots that Parks and Rec was putting on all the processes that came through here.
But in this particular case, and it's an accepted part of the GMP, so it's a different animaL
And it says that some districts shall include a park, small plazas and other types of open space. And
I don't think that that's been clearly defined on this site plan. So to give us a level of knowledge that
that's there.
MS. DESELEM: I think perhaps what would fix the situation would be to call the area
designated as community center, change that designation to a park and it would be clear that that is
where the park's going to be.
The master plan does include the areas with plaza notation, but I guess through the
evolution it was determined that the community center would fit the bill as a park and allow them
some flexibility in what they were providing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to continue with Kay until I I :45, by the way, and then
we'll take our brcak for lunch.
"-You had mentioned something I wanted to catch before it's forgotten. You had responded to
Ms. Caron about the access way where the church is. That access way is established by
Memorandum of Agreement that has four exhibits, Exhibits A, B, C and D. Exhibits A and Bare
lcgal descriptions; Exhibits C and D to my knowledge have not been seen by anybody at county
staff that I know of. Have you seen those')
MS. DESELEM: No, sir, I do not believe I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then you don't know if the graphics attached to that
Memorandum of Agreement are adequate enough to provide any kind of access fhere,just that there
is a Memorandum of Agreement that says they have acecss there.
MS. DESELEM: That's true. sir.
CHAIRMAN STIZAlN: Okay, thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Kay, where are you with the lack of detail on these plans?
Arc you eomfortahle with these? Because as far as I'm coneet11ed there's a whole lack of detail that I
just can't gct comt()rtablc with.
MS. DESELEM: And I understand that tllat's been a discussion point on this pat1icular
project.
A lot of it, we looked at the master plan, bearing in mind -- although it's no excuse and I
don't mean it to bc -- this particular project's been in the work since 2004. And as Robert Andrea
testified, it's been evolving. It's gonc through several stalfpeople, several county attorney staff.
}\nd in trying h) come up \vith sOlnething and not having to knee-jerk the applicant around
evcry time we change, we tried to come up with something. This particular plan I tllink was
accepted, if you'll use that term, by the county stajfback in October of2008.
I did go back through the criteria aileI' this issuc came up f()r this hearing and I looked,
evaluating it I think tairly carefully, as to what was shown and what isn't shown.
True, there are no typicals. That is one tlling wherc you don't havc building footprints, you
can show typicals. We don't have those. But many of the details, you kind of have to put it together
as far as here's the master plan and you look at the PU D document and hopetully from that you can
extract what the buildings would look like.
Again, a PUD gives a good deal of flexibility. You don't want to so regulate that PUD
document that anything they want to do would require an amendment to the PUD. That's
countellJroduetive as well. But yes, there could be more detail, it would be helpfuL
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 73 of 407
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, you lost me at the word hopefully, okay? That's
where you lost me. I would think atler all these years we'd get more detail, not less, and I don't like
to hopc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, during the discussions that we had over the development
standards table, were you aware that they wcre considering the buildings having two fronts?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm just using that as one example of the detail that has
been lacking in the prescntation today. Because even if staff didn't anticipate that, it's equally as
hard tor this board to anticipate such things. And we'rc learning a lot about what those details are,
based on the questions that we've had today.
Again. more detail on a unique project such as this would have been much more helpful for
all of us to understand better.
Undcr your rezone findings, there arc two issues on this project involving density
calculations: One comcs out at 12 and a half units per aerc and the other comes out I believe at 10
and a half
The basis of your rezone lindings, on which acreage did you do your analysis?
MS. DESELEM: The smaller ofthc two, which is the one that staff is SuppOl1ing in our
recol111ncndati(Hl.
CH:\IR'.lA".J STRAIN: So your rezone tindings are based on 10 and a half and the
applicant accepts your rezone Endings, as hc stated eat'lier in the mccting.
rvlS. DESELEM: Ours was based on I O.2S. And I can't speak f()r what the applicant
accepts, other than to say that I --
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I heard that in the beginning ofthc meeting, but I just
wanted to double check what you based your findings on.
Envmmmelltal AdvlSory Counctl reeommendatlons. They have two, actually three 111 a
way. They want to revicw the site devclopmellt plan. And I am extremely objceting to that. And I
eertaillly won't support anything any time their review of an SDP is sought, because I don't know
the basis tllr it in the Land Development Code. Do you know of one')
MS. DESELEivI: No, sir. I do not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know any of the members of the Environmental Advisory
Council have the credentials equivalent to all the different departments in Collier County that
review SOP's')
MS. DESELEM: I don't have an opinion Oil that one way or the other; I truly don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ijust dOIl't sec what's gained by such recommendations. I
don't see \vl1en they"rc positive without LDC rekrences saying \vhy they can be utilized. l\.nd 1'111
disappointed that whoever was monitorillg this thml a legal viewpoint at that meeting didn't advise
them that unless they can provide an LDC reference to require such. and possibly the standards that
they would have to have as credentials in order to review such. that why they're even allowed to
make such a recommendation.
So whether this project is approved or not, that particular issue is onc that will always have
a problem with me. I just don't understand it, so --
I have a lot of questions on the GMI', but I think we'll wait till we get back and we gct
David up here f()r that.
On that buffer, the bulfer between the church and the projeet, both commercial and
residential. I have done review ofthe LDC and the buffer requirements, I can see it's a Type B
buffer. Can you explain to me why statf decided not to go with the Type 13 and allowed a Type A?
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 74 of 407
Especially when there isn't a preserve on the church's site, there's a parking lot with a driveway. So
how does that fit?
MS. DESELEM: I can testify that since this came up yesterday and I was made aware of
the issue, I did go back and try to find e-mail messages, and I called the applicant to try to have him
go through his mind to see what he could come up with.
I found two different staff reviewers that wcre involved in this particular project. Both
reviewed the buffer requirements. And at one point the applicant was seeking a deviation from the
buffer requircment. And if] may, I'm going to put his infonnation on the visualizer.
I draw your attention to item numbcr two. And at that time the petitioner was seeking a
deviation from the IS-foot buffer requirement, seeking to go down to 10 feet. And the e-mails I was
able to find from rcview staff at that time indicated that okay, you've proven to me that there's
enough green space there and you wouldn't need to provide IS-foot buffer because as you explained
to me it does exist; therefore, a 1 O-foot would be all that was required.
Bascd on that interpretation from that staff person, the applicant withdrew this deviation.
So in faillles~to the-applicant, ifit's detennined that they do need a deviation, they did seek
it. And --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does staffbave the latitude to make those kind of I guess
subjective decisions in regards to deviations in our code?
MS. ISTENES: In PUDs there is a provision that allows us to do that. I'm guessing that is
perhaps what the stafT person at the time -- again, this was a while ago -- probably used. But I can't
say I(l!' sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron')
MS. ISTENES: And it has to be relocated on another part of the site. So that may --I may
be wrong on that, I'm just guessing at this point without actually talking to the staffperson.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're saying to us is that if I havc a PUD and I'm
adjacent to somebody else who's got really nicc landscaping, I can use their landscaping?
MS. ISTENES: Thc Land Development Code does provide ftlr in PUDs the ability to
administratively change the requirement through the review process. For example, a plat or an SDP,
and reloeatc it onto other areas of the site when certain conditions exist, perhaps on a neighboring
propel1y, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get back fi'OIn lunch, can you have those conditions
available? Because I'm looking at the aerial, and it's elear that it's barrcn property almost up to the
property line. So I'd like to know what conditions someone waived this --
MS. ISTENES: Honestly_ Commissioner, I'm gucssing at that. And I'm also making you
aware of that provision. I have e-lnailed ivlike Sav.'yer. Nanc:ls out and I've e-lnailed n Iny question
to him was how, qucstion mark, question mark.
So I am trying to get the answcr to you. And I actually won't be here after lunch, but Ray
certainly will bc, and we'll get that.
And honestly, if you don't agree with that, then just make it a Type B buffer or more, if you
think there's a consistency issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, we will take a one-hour lunch break,
we'll be back here at 12:45 to resume with stall Thank you.
(Lunchcon recess.)
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, evcryone, David Wccks walked in the room, we can stm1
the meeting.
Corby cautioned me, he said please don't ask me up here until David gets up first, so -- Kay,
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 20.t 0
Page 75 of 407
thank you. I think we'll move right into David and Corby and stal1 getting into the other issue that
we havc. Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Well, I know not to be late.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, a minute is a minute, you know.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of thc Comprehensivc Planning Department.
Commissioners, I thought I would givc a little bit of additional background intonnation and
some responses to pcrhaps some things that the applicant had stated.
I realizc you have some specific questions, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps other
commissioners. My suggestion will be that Imakc a few rcmarks and then Corby will walk through
the density analysis f()r the site and then go back to your questions of whatever thcy may be that
might deal with dcnsity or commercial or othcr aspects of the project.
The first thing I wanted to stress to you and really remind you, because I think you're aware
of this, dcnsity is not an entitlement. The only density this project is entitled to, or I should say this
property, is based upon its existing Estates lUning. This has historically been the case since the
Growth Managemcnt Plall has been adopted in ILJKLJ, that's the way it's been applied; that is, density
is not an entitlemcnt. And a few years ago we amended the density rating systcm to explicitly state
that dcnsity is not an entitlement.
Whcn you revicw any given project. part of your analysis of course is compatibility,
infrastructurc impacts and somc other considerations that arc identified in the Land Development
Code, allY of which could ultimately result in a determination that the eligible density is not
appropriate lilr the given sitc or givcn project.
FLUE policy n Future Land Use Element Policy 7,5 docs encourage mixed use
development. However, it goes on to explicitly state that this policy is implemented through speeific
provisions in speeitic sub-districts in this Growth Management Plan.
The point merely is that the poiicy docs encourage mixed use development, but in al1d of
itsclfit is Ilot a basis ofrcliance t"r why a project should be approved.
This specific Davis l3oulevardlCoullty Barn Road mixcd use sub-district was patterned atlcr
the residentialmixcd use neighborhood sub-district. And 1\11'. Goldmeier had made some referencc
to that sub-district, without naming it. referring to some existing legislation that was in the Growth
Management Plan. And that's what he was rcterring to.
And I certainly would concur with him that stall did suggest, when this Growth
Management Plan amendment was submitted back ill 211114. that that other existing sub-dislIict
should be thc tilulldation, should be the starting point.
This subject sub-district complied with most of the requirements of that cxisting residential
!nixed LIse neighborhood sub-district. )\\'0 notable exceptions \\'Cre the spacing criteria fbr
commercial. ^ commcreial tract could be 11<1 closer than a half mile to the nearcst commercial. And
in this particular case it is closer to a half mile: that is, less than a half mile to eommercial zoning at
the Santa Barbara/Davis Boulevard illtersectioll.
And secondly, the ratio of residential to commercial acres. this project does not comply
with that existing sub-district provision, hcnee the nced t"r this particular amendment. And that was
discussed way back at the pre-applieation meetillg f(l!' that plan amendmcnt.
I think I'll stop there, Commissioners. Some of the other comments I have pertain to some
speci lie questions.
And again, I would suggest that Corby n unless you have questions of me right now, allow
Corby to walk thruugh the speeitic analysis that staff went through f()r our detcnnination ofthe
eligible density.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 76 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question that is more generic.
Does this project or any typical project receive additional density bonuses for declaring
themselves a mixed use?
MR. WEEKS: It's a case-by-case determination. And most -- in some specific sub-districts,
and this is an example, there is specific text within the sub-district that does provide for additional
density for doing mixed use.
In this particular case the conunercial tract is allowed to have residential density on that
tract at tour units per acre. But based upon the acreage of the entire sub-district, not just that
commercial tract, that is the incentive built in to try to get people to do mixed use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this project did benefit from the incentive for doing a
mixed use project.
MR. WEEKS: TIlat is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, thcn I will have certainly another question when Corby is
done. Thank you.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good aftellloon. Corby Schmidt, Comprehensive Planner with the
Comprehensive Planning Depm1ment for Collier County.
I was one of the staff members involved in preparing the consistency review and going
through the evaluation of the proposal through all its iterations or, as characterized by the applicants,
its evolutions.
What I'm going to begin today, trying to simplify and clarify thc assessmcnt that the staff
did, and especially the calculations f()r density in this sub-district as one of the points of
disagreclllent between staff and pctitioncr. And I'll be doing that with some illustrations.
All right, thank you.
I'm simply providing here a gcneralizcd image ofthe sub-district. And the entire page is all
,)')
~~ some acrcs.
And that's what you have. I've divided it up between two parts. But lirst I want to start with
what would be the entitlement or the basc dcnsity on this propel1y in the Estates district. And that
would be four units pCI' acre. And tllat's the base on this propel1y.
With the introduction ofa commercial component, some oftllat base density is lost to those
five acres in the calculation. In order to regain somc of that rcsidential dcnsity, another allowance or
a mixed usc allowance inside this sub-district language was provided lor. And I've simply drawn the
bubblc over the linc to illustrate that that calculation for those additional mixed use allowance units
is based on all 22 acres.
As a rcquirement in the sub-district I()r allowing l()r those additional units -- and the lour
units on the base is 71 and the femr units on all ufthe acreage is 91. In order to derive those 91 units,
a requiremcnt was to provide or is to provide 10 percent of the -- of all the density or the total units
on the propcrty in afl()rdable housing, and the category is given therc, from 80 to 100 percent of
median household income. And additionally, another I () percent f()(' below 80 percent median
household incolllc.
That 20 pcreent is consistently applied to that calculation of the total numbcr of dwelling
units for the remainder of what I'm about to show you.
Again, in this sub-district the density is calculated to begin with with the base on tllose 17
point somc rcsidcntial acres. And that's f()ur units per acres, which derives 71 units.
From the last sheet to this, of coursc convcrsations and presentations during the creation of
the sub-district and tcstimony led that well, what about additional density. Those 91 and 71 may not
be enough to makc this a feasible project. And I believe that's 162, and you'll see a COlmnon theme
,~genda !tern No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 77 of 407
in some of those board minutcs of numbers around this 162,71 and 91.
In order to achievc additional density the offering was and the provision in the sub-district
language is that thc density bonus systcm would be applied. It's applied throughout the county and
that's the method to do so ti.lr any projcct likc this, how do I derive additional density. Not me
personally, but --
The density rating system allows j(lI' a number of bonuscs. And in order to derive density,
the first bonus that applied to this sub-district was the access bonus. And an additional unit per acre,
again calculated on residential pOl1ion only, is given as a bonus fi.1r being on major roadways, access
to both County Barn and Davis.
The next applicable bonus ol'fered by the density system, or the density rating systcm is that
density band or proximity bonus fi" bcing near enough to another or a mixed use activity center.
And that bonus is applied at three units per acrc, again in accordance with the density rating system
and language in the sub-district to the residential portion, that threc units per acre.
Then back to the mixed use idca with the sub-district. The calculation again we see f(lr
providing additional housing in the commercial component a-m,rded an additional density
allowancc as part of thc sub-district by the county board.
And I've again drawn that bubble Oil the line to illustrate that the calculation is done over
and using the entire acreage more than 22 acrcs. And a reminder that again, there were 10 percent of
the total dwelling unit count and 10 pcreent of tile dwelling unit count required for two ditrerent
ammiablc housing categories. And those aft(mlable housing categories were part of what the
petitioner's agellt presented to you as being one ofthose changes during the many years this has
been in process. I'll go into that a little bit later.
This is the calculation that you see just illustrated here, but you see many times in your statf
rcport and tile consistency review that results with the total dwellillg unit capacity or density of234
units.
Herc is a representation of the petitioners' calculation and how they attempt to derive thcir
density, we believe_ of 2XC,. Again, the base density_ thc access to major roadways and the proximity
to a mixed use activity center, givillg us those initial and bonus units. In this case the petitioner has
used the calculations I(lr the mixed use allowance of those j(IUr units per acre, and provides the 10
percent and 10 percellt. And if this were shown in color. you would see that the 10 percent and 10
percent that they're proposing is diJ1'crent than the 10 percent and 10 percent allordable housing
that's required by the sub-district. You saw that in your consistency review in the staff report.
There's a consistency problcm with the kind or the types or categories or aft()!'dablc housing heing
ofrcred.
Plus fl"On1 the same number of unjt~:, they're asking to derive an auditiona! three units. Their
calculation goes to live, but they're only asking f(lr three of those to approach 2XC, units overall.
But the sallle 20 percent and -- ol'the all(lrdablc housing is being used to derive seven units
per acre 1(11' their bonus dellsity. And certainly this bonus on bonus activity is not encouraged or
written into allY of the sub-district language or the densitv ratillg system or the density bonus
progralll.
And what the statfhas found, this is inconsistent. The sub-district language elearly says,
and I believe the cite would be the language I(lr the sub-district under A-X, and I'll turn to that pagc
myself I can direct you to it.
This I believe might bc on Page 4 or 5 of your staff report. because the language is rewritten
there. This is that sub-district text itself
And under the cOlllmercial component it states, residential uses are allowed and may be
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 78 of 407
located above commercial uses in the same building or within an attached building. Residential
density within the cOlmnercial component is allowed at four, four dwelling units per acre and shall
be calculated bascd on the gross acreage in the sub-district.
That's not what you see represented here. You see seven units per acre attempted to be
derived from those mixed use or that commercial component.
And the same limitation is found later in the document so that you're also looking at C-ll.
And that's the general criteria I believe earlier referred to by the applicants. And there, part of the
statement is tor the project's total density, whether it is the minimum 01'91 dwelling units or a
greater amount allowed by the density rating system, which has been applied consistently by the
staff's example. Bonus units -- I'm sorry, bonus units -- bonus provisions and approved via the
rczoning, a minimum of 10 percent and 10 percent shall be supplied.
Again, that brings us only to the 234 units.
The staff was asked to provide the applicant back in February with alternatives or methods
by which they could reach those 286 units, and they certainly can, by continuing to apply the
density bonus program by which they've derived some of thcse bonus units, to apply it further.
And how to do that? Well, the last remaining bonus available to them is with affordable
housing. So through applying the density bonus system and providing additional affordable housing,
they can derive those necessary or required three unit per acre -- or three units per acre. Again,
because it is part of the density bonus program, that calculation is applied only to the residential
pOl1ion of the propel1y. And by providing additional -- that's additional residential units of
affordable housing instead of double dipping into those units already being provided as part of the
requirement tor their mixed use allowance, they could derive additional density to reach that 286
units. However, that's not what they've asked you to do.
I think I'll pause there. Iftherc are questions about just the bubble diagrams I have used to
simplify what seems to be a complicated and confusing calculation to some -- and it may have been
for you when reading the staff report -- I hope that the illustrations assisted you with some better
understanding of how the staff arrived at numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of Corby at this time?
Mr. Schiffcr?
COMMISSION ER SCHIFFER: Corby, in the affordable housing calculation, they allow
you to increasc thc base density. Ancl they give you a little example, that the maximum allowable
density equals base plus afflmlable -- the density bonus, right? When they refer to base, what do
they rcfer to" Let me just say something, do they mean the f()ur units per acre or do they mean four
plus any other things you might get illl'loeation, aeccss and other things? Docs that derive the base?
MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not familiar with that cite. Can you direct me to it first?
COMMISSION ER SCH IFFER: Well, it's in our report, Page 1701'29 is the table we have.
I think it's an old table, but it is the one in which they derive the ability to get five additional density
-- it's in our statf report --
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- attached to thc back of it. It's thc flmn they'rc using to
ealculatc the density.
Now, I know you stated they only really want three, but they're circling to get the five. I
asked them in the hearing how many they were entitled to and they said five.
So -- but the question is not that. The qucstion is the word base density. Does that mean
atlcr you take the f(lur units, which is the county-wide base, add to that what other things they're
cligible tor, you could then on top of that use this density bonus'l Or does this mean this is only
A[jenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 79 of 407
available on top of the fllUr units?
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks again tor the record.
Commissioner, the answer is the base density is referring to the four units per acre.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Now, make sure I'm clear, that doesn't preclude other bonuses being
applicable. But specitically with this table. whcn it says base density, that's that f(lUr units pcr acre.
COMMISSION ER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this equation could read baqe density plus
atfordable housing dcnsity bonus, plus -- and you could list other bonuses to come up with what is
the maximum allowable density then.
MR. WEEKS: That's COlTect.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: But of course the f()cus ofthis tablc is only affordable workforce housing __
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Agreed.
MR. WEEKS: -- that's why there would be no mention of those other bonuses.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I wanted to make sure the eonfusitlJi'wasn't that if you
use att(lrdable housing, you only can use the base and add afj{mlable to it. That was my concern.
I guess, you know, we can go through it. I guess we'rc comf()rtablc now that the word
componcnt really defInes site, since it's rcfercncing acreage as the component. i'.re you eomf(lrtable
with that too'l I mean, therc was some testimon y that is component a physical description of a sitc or
is it a use.
MR. SCIIMIDT: I believc the question has been asked and answered a number of times by
a different number of stam.Ts and different bodies that the petitioners have come before us. And I
have always said that's an unallswerable question the way it's asked.
It's both. because the calculations arc bascd on one or the other. And other calculations are
I)ased on all of tile acreage. Hut that's ncver becll --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: It's onc of the contelllions of the applicant. that the calculations can be
adjusted according to a definition they prefer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
The other thing. in the mixcd use component, or whatever it is, the J(mr dwelling units that
they refercnce there, do you intcrpret that to be a maximum or do you interpret that to be a base?
MR. SCIIMlDT: It's a ealeulation. so it's a given. It's neither. It's both the maximum and the
minimum. It's an allowance that was given as 1"111 ofthc sub-district language because they would
provide housing j()r the aereagc lost in the residential area that is now -- was then proposed to go to
S(l!1ll' 3S to 40.()(lO square feet of C01Tl!llCrcia!. And it v./us a reasonable provision or an a!knvancc to
add density back in I()]' those lost acres. And that is fl,ur units per acre. It can't be additional under
that provision.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: So do you think -- but could that also mean that that's the
most 1ll1lnber ofullits you are allowed to put "n that site'l Regardless of what you calculate the site
to hold, docs that statement maybe mean that the greatcst density you can put on the mixed use
eomponcnt is 1(,ur dwclIillg units, essentially the 91 ')
MR. SCIIMllTT: It's been interpreted that way by a number of people to say that there is a
maximum number of units that can go on the commercial porti"n of the property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. SCIIMIDT: StatThas given y"u a number of options, especially in the consistency
review sheets only. There were supplemcntal pagcs that do not appear in the staffrepOl1 that's just
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 80 of 407
part of the eOlmnercial -- or part of the comprehensive planning staffs report.
And those supplemental pages attempt to. show you that we expect a minimum actually
located on the commercial portion, a minimum number of residences. And there's a maximum. We
do consider that maximum to be 91. But it's a flexible number, based on the way the density
blending or the transfer ofwlits is applied upon thc ultimate decision for dcnsity.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the reason I asked that is that could -- we're
never calculating the density based on the total sub-district acreage, we're always calculating where
we split it up; is that right? In other words, why wouldn't we just IUn a calculation for the gross
acreage and then takc that sentence to say you can't have more than four units on that mixed use
site, the rcst of them obviously can bc left behind on the other site.
MR. SCHMIDT: There is no other provisions in the Growth Management Plan or in the
LDC that would allow us to do that. The sub-district's specific allowance for density in the
commercial portion of it through that mixed use allowance is specific to the sub-district, and it's the
only way to get a calculation that includes the commercial acreagc. The density rating system does
not apply to the cOlrullercial portions or industrial portions of mixed use developments. And the
LDC has a backup provision that copies that.
The only way to provide additional density rcasonably to the applicants, when this sub-
district was creatcd, was to have this sub-district specific allowance that is the only calculation
based on all of the acreage. And that way they do account for the five acres.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything of Corby?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I've got a few questions.
The t,)ur units per acre that you had overlapping the two diflerent uses, commercial,
residential, if they did not agree to do a mixed use project, could they have gotten that four unit per
acre?
MR. SCHMIDT: They would not have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCHMIDT: It is only n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just trying to get you to say yes or no, that's all.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the fact that they produced a mixed
use/commercial/residential projcct on a portion of thcir property, thcy got the benefit of four more
units per acre on the overall property.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You've seen the presentation as an examplc. And I will
absolutely tell you, it was a one concept, it's not necessarily the one thcy will end up building. But if
they were to try to submit the eoneqJt plan that we saw hcre this moming with that few areas of
commercial made to service the inside of the project, meaning the residcntial units there, is that
considered a mixed use projcct? Would it have been considered a mixed use? Was the intention that
that was the lorm of mixed use project that would have generated a l'lUr unit per acre density
bonus')
MR. SCHMIDT: In a diminished f(1Il11, I bclieve so. Although their original intent was to
provide some 35,000 to 45,000 squarc feet of commercial floor area on about five acres, now your
request is j(lr only -- or your evolved proposal has now reduced that to somewhere around 13 to
15,000 with the samc tivc acre calculation. So the calculation would still apply.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 81 of 407
Thcre'd be othcr reasons why that evolution Exhibit A wouldn't be acceptable, but that's not
one of them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the original transmittal of this project through this Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioncrs and in the adoption process, collectively in
those two documents -- and they'rc packaged as documcnts, and this is them -- that were provided
by the applicant in pm1 and in staff by pm1. In both circumstances, both by the applicant and by
stafl, the capping of the number was 238. And at somc points in ranged from I think it was 164
something or 146 (0 238. But that was the range that was always told to us at the timc of the
transmittal and adoption. And then when it got to the BCC through adoption, obviously there wcre
S0111e changes.
But thc purpose of this mixed use bonus was also spell cd out in some of that
documentation, and it's a short paragraph, so let me rcad it to you.
The proposed district will be in harmony with surrounding development and land use
activities and will actually support them to some extent by the proximity of proposed facilities.
Rcsidents ofthe apartment development and the PUDs across Davis Boulevard and County Barn
Road will bc able to walk across thc street to find a variety of goods and services. Faculty for the
nearby school may livc there and both school f~leulty and eburch members may dine in cafes and
restaurants and use serviecs. Local residents will benefit as wcll by not having to Icave the village to
purchase goods and services. This proposed mixed use suh-district is compatible with nearby land
uscs and activities.
I read that because that secms to have a lot more intention of commercial component than
the example we saw here this morning. And I think that's what's got, at least myself and maybe
other of us a little bit surpriscd. Because when we envisioned mixed use, we envisioned it, as a lot
of references have been made. that thc,,'re going to have a commercial component witb residential
up upstairs.
And illstead what we'rc seeing is a Cllllvenient store with some rcsidential buildings
attached to thc back of one side of it and then nothing -- and or eoursc to the south a separate
building.
That just doesn't seem to gct us where we thought the illtent might be when we originally
saw this thing coming through.
Alld another thing, I think it also is clear that during the Board orCounty Commissioners'
hearillg on May 19th. lOOS -- and there were a lot of discussion coneel11ing the density. I've got
several examples. but this one is the most telling.
Commissioller lIennillg spokc and he said, well. yeah. that's okay, but I just want to tell you
that above yuur hase dens it),. it's ] 4~ units.
And Mr. Goldmeier said, yes. sir.
And Henning went on to say. 10 percent orthat or 14 units will he aH(,rdable and 10
perccnt will be workj('rce. and then they went on with that kind of discussion.
But it was 143 units abo"e the hase density, and the base dcnsity has been noted as 91. And
I think that's how you got to your 2.\4.
But originally at transmittal it had 238. so those numbers are relatively close. That's why
I'm having a hard time gettillg to their density of 286 or where"cr it is they'rc up to now.
MR. SCHMIDT: Lct me help with that a little bit, if I may.
MR. PRITT: Mr. Strain. what was the date--
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the mic. please.
MR. PRITT: Mr. Strain. 110b Pritt f"r thc record.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 82 of 407
You're apparently reading from somc documents that are not part of the record, as far as I
know. You said this was from a May, 2005?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one are you talking about, the quotation from
Commissioner Henning?
MR. PRITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a one -- I'm sorry, January 25th, 2005 BCC--
MR. PRITT: The January 25th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- meeting.
MR. PRITT: Okay, that is in the record. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, May 19th is also as well, May 19th, 2005. But that's two
pages back. I was two pages forward. And the one I have is May --
MR. PRITT: Okay, thc one I have is June 7th, 2005. That's why I was wondering what the
May 19th h what meeting was that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says right hCTe, document named BCC minutes, January
25th, 2005.
MR. PRITT: Yes, that one I understand. But you said May 19th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: May 19th is -- would be the Planning Commission meeting.
MR. PRITT: 011, Planning Commission, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. PRITT: We'd be happy to respond to that question whcn --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, when we get done with staff, then we'll certainly get you
back up here and try to straighten out your end of it, too.
MR. SCHMIDT: Let me addrcss the qucstion for the numbers. Somewhere near 143, 144.
When you consider the number of affordable units that are bcing rcquestcd by the
petitioner, 57, those numbers rellect the 10 percent and the 10 percent, or the 20 percent of the total
count of dwelling units that thcy intend to development here. And from that they would derive 144
bonus units, more than hall' of the density. That may include somc ofthe other bonuses, but from
that 20 and -- from that 10 and 10 percent, more than half of the density is delived from bonuses.
And I think that may be the way that that commissioner was referring to the base there.
What was -- what is calculated by staff's vcrsion is that at a minimum you already have the
10 percent and the 10 percent of the required ammlable workforce housing. And in ordcr to obtain
thc three additional units per acre to reach their desired number of total dwelling units, again at a
minimum, dcpending upon the mix orthe kinds or the categories of at fordable housing they
propose, that would be an additional 10 pcreent and an additional 10 percent, about 40 percent of
the units. to derive the san1e 144 non uses. And that's where that! 43, ! 44 comes in.
So by most calculations in other sub-districts where we've done these kinds of calculations,
40,50,70 percent orthe project is ammlablc housing to derive that density. And here they propose
just 20.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a couple of other questions, and one is can you
cxplain the comment made by the petitioncr earlier about some issuc involving the change was
made during the EAR, they felt it was un -- I don't know if unfair is the right word, but there was
somcthing they felt was inappropriate in the way that was done in rcgards to thcir subdivision.
Could you explain that change and --
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how wc did whatcver we did?
MR. SCHMIDT: Sure. I'd like to put part of that on the visualizer for you, if! may.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 20'10
Page 83 of 407
What occurred during the length of time that this proposal has been in front of us, other
changes have taken place, including EAR based amendments. Part of what took plaee in tllOse EAR
based amendmcnts is a re-categorization or the addition of gap housing to what we used to call tlle
Cormac matrix. Those eategorics shined. And I belicve the EAR bascd amendments -- and you'll
sce in the struck through, underlined version here n simply elarifies, does not change anything, does
not revise anything, docs not require anything ditferent of the petitioncr than was required of them
before EAR based amendments took place.
This simply points out what the eatcgories were at the time the sub-district was approved
and accounts j(lr what was required then. So that their expectations would be thc same. It's all it did.
I'm not sure what otller contention they have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, I have a question of you, since n and maybe I think
you'd bc the most appropriate one.
What was your intcnt of the mcaning of this sub-district's language as it was written? Is
what n thc stan's analysis your intcnt" Docs that mect your intent of that understanding of what this
sub-district is supposcd to be"
MR. WEEKS: If I understand the question. you're asking does the staff analysis reflect what
CHAIRMAN STR/\IN: You wrote the sub-district languagc.
MR. WEEKS: Ycs. I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to find out, does your h
MR. PRlTT: I need to object thcn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. Mr. n
MR. PRITT: -- his opinion's irrelevant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt. it's my question. I can ask him whatever question I want
t(ll' the public record.
MR. PRITT: I have to protect thc rccord.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you can do so in just a minute whenl.tinish my question.
The intent ofthc sub-district language that you wrote, was the intent of that language
rcllected in the stail analysis that's presented to us in regards to the density calculation?
MR. WEEKS: With regards to the density, Ict me answer it this way: The version of the
sub-district that was presented to the Goard of County Commissioners is not thc vcrsion that thcy
adopted. It was at -- as you referenecd minutes a few moments ago, read ti'Oln some.
At the ('oullty Commissioners' hcaring I(H' adoption o('the sub-district is where this new
provision came about that required the minimulll 01'1)1 dwelling units and most specifically this ]()
nl','/','nt 'l"11 ) n '""""""1" l'I"(H.ic:inn 'fh'd \\....1<: ll(\t '-"(IlYlI-'thiIlO tl,...lt <.:hffI1.!,1 ,11.~,n-P(l
l''-'''-''-''' "".. '''1'''''''''''''. ""','''.'''. .",., ".'''''..,:'!..''....'''''b n. ."'-0"'. .u.,...."...
So I would answer the question this way: The analysis that was provided to you by the
comprehensive planning depm1ment retlects what we believe the language says and that language I
believe rcllcets the intellt of the Board ofCoullty Commissioners.
CIIAII~MAN STRAIN: Okay. And thc language that you wrote, that you interprcted ji'OIll
thc Goard of County Commissiollers. do you belicvc that's also the intent of the Board of County
('(llllmissioners'l
MR. WEEKS: Yes, I do.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Pritt, did you want to make a statement?
MR. PRITT: No, Iobjcet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Next thing. David, I had some questions eoneerning the permittcd use languagc, some very
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 84 of 407
specific references in here. And I had reiterated earlier and called it to your attention while you were
sitting back there. If you're not familiar with what l'm referring to, I can read it again, if you'd like.
MR. WEEKS: I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Once you posed that question or that issue earlier, I took the time to look
through the various sub-districts in the Future Land Use Element and Golden Gate Area Master
Plan, which allow commercial development to see what tenninology was used there.
Most of them use a phrase allowed or allowable as in uses in the C-I, 2, 3, whatever
commercial zoning districts are allowed or are allowablc, or those are the uses, uses shall be similar
to, similar types of phrases.
This is the -- one of the few -- I believe this is the only one that specifically uses the tenn
pellnitted, pellnitted uses in the C-l, 2, 3 zoning districts.
There are some that are very explicit. One in particular that says uses pennitted by right.
That is vcry clear. That's in the downtown center commercial sub-district in the Golden Gate Master
Plan.
And then there's I think a couple of cxamples, more recent ones, where the terminology
says uses pem1ittcd -- excuse me, pelll1itted or conditional uses of the so-and-so commercial zoning
districts.
Thc point I'm trying to make hcre, I'm walking through some examples, but to show that
more recently staff has been recommending and then the board adopting language that is explicit
that it does says permitted and conditional, if that's the intent. And if the intcnt was just to be
permitted uses; that is, thosc allowed by right, that it would explicitly state that.
But most of the sub-districts, and this goes back to the original adoption of the plan in '89
and then some amendments to create individual sub-districts since then, most of them use the phrase
allowcd or allowable, which is vague in the sense that weB, does that mean permitted by right, docs
that mean conditional, or could it be either.
Historically statfhas recommended, and in most cases I believe the Board of County
Commissioners have approved, zoning to implement these sub-districts on a case-by-case basis
where the determination is made what uses are appropriate, what uses are pelll1itted by right in the
allowable zoning districts and what uses, if any, that are only allowed by conditional use.
And I'll quickly make this point. You go through the samc public hearing process as far as
the notice requirements, the numbcr and typc of hearings for a conditional use as you do for a
rezoning. So that when in this case this petition is belore you now to rezone the property, they'rc
asking !()r some conditional uses li'om some of the commercial zoning districts. You and the Board
of County C0l11missioncrs will have the ability, do huvc the ability through this hearing and theirs,
to evaluate those requested conditional uses to determine if you think they'rc appropriate for the
propel1y.
The big distinction, though, is that you're reviewing them cn masse; whercas an individual
conditional use petition, when it comcs bcflll'e you, that's the only thing you would be focused on
for that project site, and you would have a lot more details. You would have the details of the
conditional use being considercd. In this case thcre's a whole range of conditional uses being
proposed and you're considering thcm en massc as to whcther or not they're appropriate.
But I think I'll boil it all down to thc short answcr, bceause I think that's what you're looking
for. This language says permitted. Did that mcan permittcd by right? I do not think it did. I think it
mcant pClll1itted in a generic context not permitted as it is defined in the LOC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying that even further then by the word
Agenda Item No SA
December 14, 2010
Page 85 of 407
pcnnitted but not permitted by right we could actually go in and weed out certain C- I, C-2 and C-3
uses that may be dcemed -- that we may feel are inappropriate for this particular site.
MR. WEEKS: I ccrtainly do. I mean, the Growth Management Plan sub-district is
establishing what uscs -- the range of uses that are allowed on the property. But it's through the
specific analysis ofthc rezone petition that comes before you that you detennine which of those
uses are appropriate. Because you're looking at more detail now, more specifics of the projcct that
you would not have at the GMP amendment stage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my other question would be the language involving the
effect at the timc of SOP approval. Whereas the language that's in the GMP, I seem to read, it says
in effect at the time of adoption of the sub-district. Which is it? Because their PUD is trying to hook
it to SOP approval" Is it tbat or is it specifically what the GMP says?
MR. WITKS: In this case I would havc to say the GMp is explicit and it's clear that it's
based 011 the adoption date of the sub-district, not some future date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Now, questions any further on thc density" David. did you"
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you havc any, Brad"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I (h
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
CClJ'vlMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby. just bear with me a second. And maybe David, you
could -- Corby, let's run through the available density on this site, okay? Let's forget whieh
component welre on right 110'0.'. okay?
MR. SCHMIDT: All right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the Iirst one, where available, every site in town's
avadabfc I'lln' units. correct'! 'I hat's thc base dcnslty olCollier County.
MR. SCHMJ[)T; It is.
COMMISSION ER SCHIFFER: Okay. They would be allowed the access density of one.
MR. SCHMJ[)T: They would.
MR. WEEKS: I need to interject.
I don't agree with the tirst scenario, unless you meant it hypothetically. Because in this
partie --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well--
MR. WEEKS: Did you mean it hypothetically, just a general piece of property'!
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Finish your sentcncc. becausc maybe I didn't.
1\1R. \VEEKS: Ok~y, Bccau~;c in this p~lrticu!ar case this is not a general piece of property
govcrned by the urban residential sub-district. There's a very specitie sub-district on this property.
And its only provision to allow rcsidential dcnsity to be generated li'OI11 that commercial traet is that
provision that allows j'l!' t()ur units per acre. based upon the entire site acreage. Otherwise __
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ilow do you Cllme to that conclusion ti'mn the words in the
sub-district"
MR. WEEKS: In the sub-district languagc, Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use
sub-district paragraph A-g statcs rcsidential uses are allowcd -- excusc me, g-A is commercial
component. And (hell number g is residential uses are allowed and may be located above
commercial uscs in thc same building or within an attached building. Residential dcnsity within the
cOllllnereial eOlllponellt is allowed at f'lllr dwelling units per acre and shall be calculated based upon
the gross acreage in the sub-district.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 86 of 407
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, when I rcad that, how corne I get the feeling that
they're limiting 91 units in the mixed use segment of the site --
MR. WEEKS: Well, because that--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- not adjusting how we calculate the base density? In
other words, how do you detennine that that means -- forget about our nonnal base in this case,
we're going to go by this.
MR. WEEKS: Sorry, but I don't understand the question. To me it reads clearly that they
are eligible for four units per acre on the commercial tract, but the density of lour is based on the
entire sub-district acreage.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What it says, within the commercial component and it says
residential density within the commcrcial component is allotted four dwelling units per acre and
shall be calculated based upon the b'TOSS acreage of the sub-district.
So that's thc 9 I units. So to me that means you're not going to have more than 91 units in
that sub-district. It doesn't mean that don't calculate tbe base any different.
Let's pretend I understand, you know, I'm right. So what you're saying is in this case the
four units base density that Corby startcd his presentation with is that f(lUr units.
MR. WEEKS: That base density offour units per acre is not applicable to the eOlmnerciaI
component. The base density offour units per acre is only applicable to the residential component.
It states so in the sub-district and it also provides reference back to the future land use -- excuse me,
to the density rating system which also specifically provides that residential uses are just allowed on
noncommercial and nonindustrial pOl1ions of a project.
So it's saying when you look at a mixed use project such as this, don't look at the
commercial tract, just look at the balance of the property for the acreage to use to determine density.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean -- okay, but let me n let's go back then. You
can do that -- okay, so let's go to tbc residcntial tract and then maybe I can walk it over.
So thc residential tract, it's a base oft(lur units based upon the LDC; is that what you're
saying?
MR. WEEKS: Based upon the density rating system.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The basc density starts at l(lUr.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They get the one, colTect?
MR. WEEKS: That's COITeet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They get the proximity three, correct?
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now, if they did the alfordable housing calculation
-- and the one we're that provided with that we're supposed to approve today has a dcnsity of five. I
know you stated they said thrce, but it's tive in the paperwork. So would they be allowed that? In
other words, that gives them an additional live units per acre.
MR. WEEKS: They would be allowed to requcst it bc eligible for affordable housing
density bonus. You mentioned three or fIve, they could go as high as eight, but only on the
residential portion of the project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Well, that's what I'm doing. I'm going down that. So
in other words, the residential portion, based upon their application, could have 13 units per acrc. I
mean, doing --
MR. WEEKS: Based on their five requested.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Using their tive.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 87 of 407
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, I agree.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. What you're saying then, in addition to that they
would be allowed 91 units on the commercial, t(lrget the conversation of base and everything else;
is that right?
MR. WEEKS: That's eOlTeet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions of David or Corby on this
density issue or any of the GMP issues?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Karen.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The two types of housing that are required in this sub-
district lor the atlclI'(lablc workf(lree housing are meant to be owner occupied; is that correct?
MR. SCHMJDT: Not nccessarily.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If they're awarded with a bonus? It's not a right. lllis must--
Brad said this is an old chart, the numbers arc dif)'erent here whcre he's gettiilg thc five units per
aerc. But they're including the low income, 51 to 60, and that says --
MR. SCHMJDT: We'll talk about their categories --
COMMISSIONER flOMIAK: -- and that doesn't have to be owncr occupied.
MR. SCHMIDT: -- in a momcnt. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER f-10MIAK: Is that right? Because thcre's an asterisk next to it, in this old
one anyway. It says thc gap in the worktllrcc need to bc owner occupied. And anything below that I
guess can be rentals.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner. I'm going to suggest we defer -- it best f(,r us to defer
specific qucstions about the alllll'(lable housing density provision. specifically to your question of
ownerslnp. to Frallk Ramsey, to Buddy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Be!llre Mr. Ramsey comes up to try to answer her question, if this
project doesn't utilize the density bonus of the ai'tllrdablc housing category but uses the 10 and I ()
pcrcent requiremcnt by thc county commission. arc they then restricted to owner occupied, bascd on
thc ai't(lrdable housing density hOlluses')
MR. WEEKS: That's not clear. l3eeausc when thc county commission added that
requirement -- if the real question is did they illtcnd 1(11' those units to follow thc LDC pro--
otherwise 1()lIow the LDC provision. I would tend to think so, hut I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
And rvlr. Ramsey,ls going to respond 10 I(an:n.
JvlR. RAlv1SE\': For the record, Frank Rmnscy. !lousing J'danager.
To answer the question about whether these would have to bc owner occupied units that
received aflllrdable housing density bonus. I'm looking through the agreemcnt 1(11' the petitioner
right 1l0W and I do not bclievc that it is a rcquircment that they'rc ownership units, so long as they're
maintaincd afl(mlable rental units. But I'm going to eonlirm that right now.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you'd havc -- would you let us know before too long,
your eonlinnation on that'!
MR. RAMSEY: Five minutes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCllllTER: I3ctllre -- Buddy. don't run away.
Co ahead. ladies lirst.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, who's got thc qucstion"
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 88 of 407
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I do.
Buddy, what is the density based on the new chart, which we don't have in our application?
How many units per acre is the maximum they could get? They say they want three, but the
application we have says they can have -- they're entitled to five.
MR. RAMSEY: Let me see if I have the most recent here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask you a question this way: Since this
application is so old and they started it, are they entitled to the older application, or will they have to
use the updated one? I guess the EAR changed the wording to match the updated one, so -- this
really shows how we have to really pay attention during the GMP eyeles.
So they're entitled to five.
MR. RAMSEY: According to the application, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the application is in en'Ol'. That's not the grouping that they're
supposed to be applying for. They're supposed to be applying for gap, I believe, and then something
below gap. But isn't gap a requirement of the subdivision?
MR. RAMSEY: I don't believe that the gap is the requirement ofthc affordable housing
dcnsity bonus application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't my question.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It is offhe sub-district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In No. C-I 1 of the general criteria it talks about]() perecnt must be
affordable worki(lrCe housing units provided l(lr those earning greater than 80 percent, but no
greater than 100 percent of the medium of Collier County.
And then thc other section is 10 percent of those less than or cqual to 80 pcrcent of the
median household.
So those are the two numbers. So now how does that tit into the afj{lrdabIe housing bonus
agreement? The one that they supplied, it doesn't seem to. They'vc got one ofthe categories
mlsslllg.
MR. WEEKS: I'll ask the question on the record of the staff that's here. I believe this goes
back to the staft's position in reading this language that the board adopted that there is a rC'quirement
to provide the 10 percent and 10 pcrcent of certain housing types. And then beyond that is where the
density rating system bonuscs would eome into play, which means the affordable housing density
bonus is -- would apply as usual f()r everything above the two I O-pereent categories.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but at a minimum they've got to have the 10 percent and 10
pcreent categories to begin with, and then anything bcyond that ean lall under the atlordable
housing density bonus program.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffcr?
COMMISS10NER SCHIFFER: Let me say that back to you. So what you're saying is that
the affordable housing requirement that they have in here now does not entitle them to the bonuses,
the bonus dcnsity? In other words, if they did the minimum that's in I I, they get no further
entitlement of density based on the alt(,rdable housing bonus program?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And that's one of the key areas I think of disagreement
between the two readings ofthe language, what was the intent ofthc board, and obviously
ultimately the board's going to have to determine that.
Agenda Item t,o. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 89 of 407
But I believe that the board was saying you have to provide the 10 percent and this 10
perecnt, period. It's only -- it's strictly the applicant's choice if he wishes to ask for other density
bonuses, whether they be affllrdable housing or any other type. But mandatory must do the 10
percent and 10-- must dcvelop 91 units and must develop 10 percent and 10 percent of those as the
affordablc and workfllrce, rcspeetively.
COMMISSION ER SCH IFFER: So what you say was resolved is that you have to build a
basc density of four units, thus 91. You can't put any morc than that, by the way, in the mixed use,
so essentially you would build nothing on the other side if you did that. And you have to build the
10 percent, 10 percent.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What good was -- I mean, they didn't get anything in that
dcal.
MR. WEEKS: No, they didn't.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In fact, what thcy got is the ability to not dcvelop the ._.
rcsidential and thus -- what do you read that comes to that conclusion'l What, II, is that where you
get that? You don't have to read it now, I'll read it --
MR. WEEKS: C-I I _ that's correct. Paragraph C-II.
/l.nd that certainly is what is unusual about this sub-district, as statlbelicves the board
intend cd, is that they were imposing, they were mandating an afflmlablc housing component in tbc
sub-district, whereas usually it's strictly lell up to a choice of an applicant to request the affordable
housing density bonus.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But didn't they mandate it because the applicant wanted to get a
dcnsity bonus of l(lUr units per acre'l Wasn't that the point of instilling upon them this 10 percent
and 10 pcreent" if you wallt more dellsity, you do it by their terms. Thcir terms were you can have
it. but they want 10 and 10.
MR. SCHMIDT: That's more accurate than what Commissioner Schiffer eharactcrized it as.
It's not that thcy don't gain anything li'om doing so. it's that they've doubled their density from four
to eight pCI' acrc on 17 of the acres, plus they were awarded f(lur units per acre on the commercial
component fllr doing so.
So they lose nothing. Nothing is lost whatsoever. They've more than doublcd their density
with that mixed use allowance. And they've got it on the commercial component, or calculated it
there, wherc it could not bc bcfll]'C.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say this back to you, and I'll do it quicker now,
because we've got a lot of practice. Four base they'rc h I'm on the residcntial only. Four basc they're
~d!owed. One fIX the ~H:CCSS, three C()r the pruximity. :.Inti then you're saying they get four additional
because of II ill here. So you can add those up in thc residential and that's their density.
Because you had n earlier conversation you told me that they don't get a base density
because ol'the IllUr. Now you're saying they get the eight. So they do get the 1(IUr. Why is this so
confusing?
MR. WEEKS: I phrased it that way because we're not talking about base in the sense of
when we usually look at a residential project or a portion thereof: we've walked through the density
rating system as we're discussing now.
In this case, though, I'm j(leusing on the commereiaf tract when I talk about the t(lUr units
per acre apply to the entire 22 plus acres to generate a density that will be built on the commercial
tract. So I'm segregating that li'om the residential. I sec it as that's on the len, the other calculation is
on the right. and thc right being the residential portion orthe project.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 90 of 407
I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways. In my mind I try to keep the
residential and commercial segregated, because that's what the sub-district text does.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See, I don't think we're saying that, because what I'm
saying is, I think that four units was establishing a maximum you could put on the commercial. It
had nothing to do deriving units. It had to do with don't put more than four units per acre, as derived
by the whole site on this paI1icular component.
MR. WEEKS: I agree with that statemcnt.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now, you're using that also -- I mean, I guess
whatever's the opposite of double dipping, you're doublc not dipping or something, you're using that
to say that that's also their base density in the residential area, which I don't think is fair.
But let's just use numbers in horse trade, bccause this isn't going to get us n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are you--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done.
MR. RAMSEY: Mr. Chaimlan, just to confirm your past question, the affordable units may
be owner occupied or rented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I do want to go back to that. Wait a minute. According to thc
chart that is here, the workf()rce level housing has to be owner occupied. I think that was Ms.
Homiak's point.
COMMISSIONER ]-IOMIAK: Right. The gap and the workforce have to be owner
occupied. And I think that was probably thc intent of the BCC too, because Commissioner Fiala
mentioned McCabe's projcet in Bayshore. And that's --
MR. RAMSEY: Absolutely. and n
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: n what the whole thing was about.
MR. RAMSEY: I should havc becn more elear on the low units.
As you can see on the n what I put on your projector, may be eligible for rental so long as
they eonfoml to the al'l(ll'dablc rental limit. So the gap housing units may in tact need to be owner
occupied while the lower incomc units may be rcntal units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this an absolute or a maybe"
MR. RAMSEY: That's an absolute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby, did you have anything else you WaIlt to throw in to
mix it Lip even more?
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. If you'd like, I'm prepared to prcsent to you some of the
discrepancies bctween the proposed ammlable workloree housing density bonus agreement and
their other materials.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: So please, pull what would be your ordinance and its attachments, or its
exhibits. And somewhere I think behind Page 13 of that handful begins thciragreemcnt paperwork.
And then the numbcrs begin to be numbered as I of29, 2 01'29 and so forth.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 13, Corby'!
MR. SCHMIDT: I believe that's about where it would be. If it's in another location in
another handful, it just is their proposed housing agrecment. All right?
Agenda Ilem No. 8A
December 14,2010
Page 91 of 407
Depending upon your reeollullendation today and the finding of the full county board,
many of the numbers in this agrecment are inconsistent with what should appear. Let's begin on the
first page under recitals. And thcir density provision is just an overall number of I 2.5. Certainly
depending upon the method they arrivc at their full desired density, or whether they're limited to
234, as staff has calculated, that number would changc.
In thc very next line where it states the gross acreage of property is 22.S3, because all of the
affordable worktorce housing density bonuscs are calculated only on the residential portion of the
sub-district, all of your acreage figures in this document rellecting 22.S are in error and they should
be 17.S. That is one of the points of disagrcement and differences between the applicant and staff,
but it is one of the glaring examplcs of it.
MR. PRITT: What page arc you on"
MR. SCHMIDT: One.
In the very next line where they propose 57, which is their 20 percent of their total unit
county, then they state 100 percent of the approved bonus units. Actually, 57 is about 40 percent of
all the bonus units, but thcy are 100 percent of the atllmlable bonus units.
On the next page --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, how can you say that the gross acreage is not 22.S3
units'l They're going to be putting atlCJrdable housing on the other components. So, I mean, J know
you're trying to make this work with the density conversation we had but, you know, the gross
acreage has to be that, the 22.S3.
MR. SCHMIDT: It has to be that if you're the applicant. But since the density rating
system, you have a handout and you've heard a presentation li'0111 statTbe1(Jre this. And the language
in the sub-district, these bonuses do not appiy t"r the commercial component acreage. And that
commercial component acreage, when subtracted ti'om 22 point something, is 17.
COMMISSIONER SCH IFFER: I get the simple math there. But the taet is, though, the
aH(mlable units arc probably going to be on the other acrcage.
This gcts more and more -- I mean. arc they allowed to build ammlable ullits in the mixed
use side of the property"
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The acreage you just excluded'l
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
CO\1MISSlONFR SCHIFFER: It's me. I guess.
rvlR. SCHfVlIDT: The calculation includes those acreage, so iCs not heing 11lisscd or
excluded. I'm confused by the question e\en,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know, I'm just con -- I mean, we have a clumsy
density system: we're trying to fill this !(m11 out with a clumsy density system, so wc're going to
have a clumsy !(mll bel(lre wc'rc done. so --
MR. WEEKS: If I might interject. and hopefully this will be helpful. It scems that the
agreement t'llll1 does not contemplate a project t(lr which only a portion of the aercage is used to
calculate the aHcmlablc housing bonus. I mean, certainly the gross aercage ofthis property is the
22.S3, but not that total 01'22.83 is used to ealcufate density n thc dcnsity bonus 1,,1' atlClrdable
\vorkforcc hl)Using.
And that's the context in which this acreage is located. Because you identify the gross
acreage and then you talk about the numbcr of units you're going to build that are atlordable. And
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 92 of 407
that's part of the calculation of the density.
I think what needs to occur in this case is we need to modify the form. And to say, well, the
gross acreage is the 22.S3 but for calculating the affordable workforce housing density bonus, the
proportion of the site acreagc is 17.83.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we are going to have units built that are going to
become part of the gross number of units. Part of what we take our percentage against, right, that
didn't get calculated from the residential side? Am I wrong there, or --
MR. SCHMIDT: You may be wrong there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I hope I'm wrong.
MR. SCHMIDT: The proposal as is, is to put all of the affordable units in the commercial
components. And they're awarded bonuses for that from thc mixed use allowance. It's not been
overlooked.
MR. WEEKS: Maybe if I could answer it differently. Kay just whispered in my ear.
From the staff perspective we need to segregate that 10 percent and 10 percent that we
believe is mandated, and therefore is lIbt part of the density bonus agreement. The density bonus
agreement is only going to pertain to the n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me make it easier, I'm slowing --I'm going to hop in
the back seat. Thcse guys can n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms, Caron.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: David, maybe I can clear it up for my own self.
Irrcgardless of the total gross area, total gross acreage, the fonnulas arc written on the
residential only, and that's what we have to deal with is the residential only. Whatever commercial
is irregardlcss on the gross end, coneet?
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Does that simplify'l
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's roughly correct.
MR. WEEKS: I mean, all the density--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty units are--
MR. WEEKS: n all the density bonus calculations only apply to the residential acreagc of
the project. That base density ofl(lllr units per acre only applies to the residential portion of tile
projcct.
The only calculation of density that involves the commercial acreage is that specific
provision that says for that commercial component, they get fllllr units per acre based on the entire
site acreage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: But other than that, all the discussion about how many units that they get
through bonuses and whatnot, that should only be applicable to thc residential --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's only in the residential sidc.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, you said it bctter than I could. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, lct's see if we can move a little bit further past--
MR. SCHMIDT: CCJ1ainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't n try to stick to something we can understand, okay?
MR. SCHMIDT: Same document, Page 2.
MR. PRITT: Can I object'! I really need to have a mic over here. I'd like to object to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you get closer to the mic then? And Bob, tllerc's a mic over
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 93 of 407
here, you could stand at that podium and objeet every five minutes if you want.
MR. PRITT: Really?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're still going to continue on.
MR. KLA TZKOW: This is the mie, Tony.
MR. PRITT: Maybe it will actually be helpful. This discussion that you're about to have is
predicated upon the calculation that thc staff has ofthc density and thc allocation. It seems to me
that that would not be relevant unless and until you get to a dctennination as to what the density
calculation ought to be.
As I feared this morning when I first spoke, we're getting all into this density calculation
stuff. You've heard every pel111utation combination you possibly can hear on that. ll1is follows that,
this docsn't direct that. And it would seem to me that we could hold this off until such time as you
make your detellnination.. Just a thought.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we certainly could hold off somc of the dialogue,
if some of us can survive that way. But !(lr the record, I'd like to know that if there arc any
discrepancies needed in these documents. we get it on thc rccord, so --
MR. SCHMIDT: j'lI finish with just the second page example. Undcr numbcr two,
developer agrcements, the language they propose is the developer hereby agrees that he shall
construct up to 57 units. I belicve he'd want a commitment lor no less than 57 units or, again,
depcnding upon the entire density of the dcvelopment, whatcver that number would bc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Corby.
Are there any other questions, dare I ask, about the density issue or the atfordable housing
issue'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, are there any other stalfpresentations'l
\1S. DLSlcLEM: Hopctully I grabbed the right thing when I came up here quickly.
I just wanted to c1arily OIlC thing, and otfer another thing that might help things.
In the PUD document, the part that vou were just talking about on Page 2 where it talks
about the permitted uses, in Section I .2(A)0). it's important to make a clarification on the reference
parenthetically to Ordinance No. 2005-25 where it states it was adopted on June 27th. 2005.
Further research indicates that that was indeed adopted on June 7th, not the 27th. And that
has a bearing un which C-I. 2 and -' uses arc the appropriate uses.
And I would offer that it might be a good idea. beeausc this date is in here, that we include
as an additional exhibit those uses as idcntilicd within that document so there isn't a question later
about what the C-I uses were in June of21111'.
C!-L\!Rf\1AN STH./l,!N: \Ve!!. unj(lrtunatc!y yuur statement opens up another can of
\VOl"ms.
David Weeks, if you could, the GMP is explicit in its rekrcncc to this date. Thc fact that
we'vc now becn told the date may be in error. what docs that mcan in regards to the statements in
the GMP'1
MR. WEEKS: I dun't think it has any material impact, because the specitic ordinance is
referenced, Ordinance 05-25.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the date ofthat adoplioll is what it is, regardless of what the
date may be in error in the GMP or otherwise'>
MR. WEEKS: That's h ycs.
CflAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Kay, is there anything else you wanted to say bc1(lre I moved to John'l
Agenda ttem No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 94 of 407
MS. DESELEM: I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's sitting back there thinking he's going to get out of it here
today.
MS. DESELEM: At this time I have nothing, but I would like to reserve the right to come
back if we have anything that comes up as a result of any other testimony that's provided.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Pritt, I'm holding off until all the staff gets done, then I'll let you do any cross you need
to do, to a reasonable extent.
John, if you could come up, we -- there's two questions I'm going to have, and there may be
others.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podezcrwinsky, Transportation Planning.
And you had some questions, sir?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. The easement to the church next door, the traffic count as
proposed had the -- ifthcy utilizcd the filll commercial they're looking for is3,500 plus trips a wcek
I think it is in their TIS.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Perhaps daily?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, daily, I'm sorry. 3,520 daily two-way trips.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you sccn thc actual sizc and b'Taphie configuration of that
easement?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, I have not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do know there's a document out there, thc'fe's a Memorandum
of Agreement to have an easement.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: This is con'eet, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's pursuant to a series of exhibits.
And I think in conversations with you carlier, you've got two of thc exhibits, A and B, but
the two that show the graphics and thc actual casement you don't have either.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: This is conect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't know if that casement will provide adequate access to
this propel1y.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point no, I'm not positive of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The TIS that was provided, let's assume they were going to
use their 35,000 or 38,000 square feet they're asking Jor in this application. In previous mectings we
had asked n J know I have and I think other members of the board -- whcn a TIS is done, do you do
it on the least intense use or the worst case scenario use?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Worst case scenario use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the worst case scenario use on this property I think
would be grocery store or restaurant or other uses that could be in the C-I, 2 or 3 districts. But that's
not how this TIS was written; it was written using the 820 usc.
MR. I'ODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you guys accept that? Is that--
MR. PODCZER WINSKY: Yes, wc typically do accept the 820 use, because the 820 use, as
Mr. Treesh had noted earlicr ti'OI1l TR Transportation, he had noted that within that 820 use, it does
also list as out-parcels you can havc shopping centers, gas stations, restaurants. There are a lot of
included uses within that square f()otage, allowable uses within that square footage.
One of the core differences is that the land use codes applied by ITE do not match the SIC
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 95 of 407
codes that most planners typically use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the trip generation count for a 20,000 or any square foot
grocery store is going to be greater than the trip generation ofLUI what, 820 I think it is that you
guys use tor shopping centers. So how is using the shopping center trip count worst case scenario?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For a 35,000 squarc i()ot b'rocery store ifit's--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 20,000 is the maximum allowed by thc subdivision for a
grocery store.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay, I would have to verify that by looking at the ITE to make
sure that it's highcr trip generation rate i(lr the p.m. peak hour, which is what we typically base our
analysis on.
But if there is a higher trip generator that is applicable specifically to the site, then it should
be used, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thanK you.
Anybody have any questions"
Mr. SehifTer"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John. we talked a little bit about this earlier is that would
they be ablc to have a right-in on County Bam'l .lust purely a right-in, somewherc above thc church
aecess'l Lct's n you know, there is a turn lane. The road has room f()r further development in that
arca too, so even thc turn lane could havc a turn lane,
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Corrcct.
As I understand, the answer to that question right now is no. Per the current access
management policy that we have. the minimum required distance i(,,- the 45 mile per hour road
would be 440 feet. The currellt driveway that they have is 630 feet.
There is onc problem, though, that precludes us li'om looking at a secondary -- or at a
drivew'IY dIrectly to the sitc. At their frontage to ('ounty l3arn is that the County 1:3am ptans that
have been developed by Collier County that were previously in the five-year plan, those havc a turn
lane that extends almost the entire length of this site.
I do have a graphic with me. if anyone would likc to see that, I can put that on the
visualizer, if it's necessary. Anybody'!
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't oJ'tcr any more than we don't ask l()r, to be honest with
you. today'.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my questioll, John, is that your concern was; is that
somebody slowing down to make that turn would slow down that turn lane. But you could make a
turn lane oif ofthat turn lanc. there's enough room there j()r that.
['dR. PODCZER\V!NSI"'~Y: 'y'uu could. It \vould prohably he a substandard length turn lane.
And the perception is is that it would create a salety issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Wc'll go with no.
On the Davis road side, could they have a right-in/right-out up there without having to go
through the whole residential'!
MR. PODCZERWI'iSKY: I'd hal'c to look at the plan again. but as I recall, and I've
eonJirmed this with FDOT this moming with their access management staff: a right-in/right-out, the
minimum distance spacing hom the County l3am intersection, County Barn and Davis, as you
travel eastbound on Davis is 660 1Cct I()!' a 50 mi Ie per hour posted speed roadway.
The 1,320 that has been required would be f()r a directional median opening would mean a
westboulld left in would be allowed at that poillt. If there havc been turther restrictions placed on
that by FOOT, I have not cOllfirmed those yet.
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 96 ot 407
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But based on what you're saying is they do own the
property, they are in control of the shape of the property, what's developed. So there would be
maybe the potential of a right-in/right-out.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And John, one more thing. Were you aware of the acquisition of!
think it was a 20-foot easement in the front of the propel1y along County Barn Road for utility and
drainage?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was 20 fect; do you remember? Is it? Or is it 30? I think it
might be 30.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe it's 20.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty?
You guys paid $225,000 for that little strip. Why?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good qucstion, sir, I wasn't involved in the acquisition of that
parcel.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know that in 2004 when this came through for transmittal
and adoption, they had already noted in their mastcr plan that they had reserved 52 feet of that for
that right-of~way?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, I did not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's on the pages in the documents that I received for
adoption and transmittal. And I was just wondering why wc would pay that kind of money lor a
smaller easement when we alrcady had a reserved 52-f()ot right-ot~way there.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, I believe that -- if! recall correctly, I believe that there
was a LASII' stormwater -- Lely Area Stormwater Improvemcnt Plan project that connected in at
that -- the casement that was purchased, which I think was called parcel 131.
And there were some concessions made when we purchased that about sharing landscape of
some kind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Docs your department do any of the LASII' projects?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's our stonnwater division, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they communicate vcry much with the--
MR. PODCZER WINSKY: We try to communicate as otten as possible, and sometimes we
miss a communication here and therc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one might have been costly. Okay, thank you, sir.
/\nybodyelse?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of staff?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any othcr staff presentations?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem.
Wc have nothing else to offer you. If you have questions -- other than that, we're happy to
answer questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're donc, but I -- yeah, beforc we go into Mr. Pritt's
questions, ifhe has any, we'll come back aileI' a break. We'll take a l5-minutc break and at 2:20
we'll resume. Or actually 2:25, I'm sorry.
(Recess.)
Agenda ItelTl No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 97 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob walked in, we can now stm1 the meeting.
Sir, I think you at some point reserved the right to cross-examination. Do you have any
such questions you'd like to ask?
MR. PRITT: No cross-examination.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I havc--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: A question h,r Mr. Pritt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, there is one question of you, though. It's not a cross, but
it will be Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Earlicr in eonversatiun when we were talking about the
square footage of units, the GOO square fect.
MR. PRITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The minimum floor area.
It was stated that it is that size 1(11' a one bedroom unit'l
MR. PRITT: It's my understanding that it is, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I'd like to call your attention to Page 2101'24 in the
staff report. The ncighborhood int(l11nation meeting stated that thcy would be three and two
bedroom rcsidential town homes. not one bcdroom. W c're prctty fussy here about what we say in
public at neighborhood in!(JI'Illation meetings.
MR. PRITT: I'm SlllTY, did I say that"
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know who said this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I brougbt it up as a question.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Agent and applicant.
MR. PRIIT: Yeah, I don't know which meetillg that was. I attended one ofthem, but there
havc beell so many over so many years, I don't know which is which.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well. this apparently was the first one. This is the first
meeting. I don't know, who was thc agent or app n you know. agent speaking. We can probably ask
that of stalf But that's what it says herc. that was the commitment. three and two bedroom
residential, thrce storics.
MR. PRITT: There have been a lot of -- this has becn a long road and is a long road. There
have becn a lot of changes since 2004 n I almost said I l)()4, but it seems like it.
And that's one of the problems you havc when certain things are on people's minds and then
eco1lo1l1ics change. And what \vas Oil cvcrybody"s mind in 2005 \vas how arc we going to get some
aff()rdab!c huu:-;ing density',
Alld so I'm not surc what was said when, but we do havc some ehangcd circumstances. And
I'll talk about that, if I rcmember at the end with regard to the commercial component also. Thank
YOll.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
And Kay. can up shed some light on what sta11' member attended the NIM and if they may
bc able to respond if it wasn't you?
MS. DESITEM: 'y'eah, I was trying to t(lllow that conversation. If you're talking about thc
March 2nd, 2005 NIM, it states at the bottom n or if you go down it says project planner Mike Bosi.
So hc was thc staff person at the time.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: That's quite a while ago. Okay. Well, that doesn't help us today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I wasll't -- yeah, so we have no idea.
Agenda ttem No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 98 of 407
MS. DESELEM: So I can't shed much light.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and we've had the staff presentation, we have the applicant's
presentation. The applicant will be able to have a rebuttal at thc end of the hearing. So let's entertain
the public right now. And who is n do we have any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: One speaker. Evan SteingaJ1.
MR. STEINGART: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Evan,] believe you were sworn in?
MR. STEINGART: Yes, I was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you'll have to state your name for the record to begin and
then we're set to go.
MR. STEINGART: Good afternoon. My name is Evan Steingart. S-T-E-I-N-G-A-R-T.
I am representing Napoli, Glen Eagle, and now I've been infonned Countryside has also
joined us. That would give you about 2,500 residents that are opposed to this project in its present
fOTI1l,
Let me be very clear that we are not opposed to the development of this project. However,
what Mr. Goldmeier has proposed is not compatible or complimentary to the surrounding area. And
let me be specific about that. I also have a letter of objcction from Countryside. She could not be
here. I will give it to you at the end.
What I mean by the project not eontonning with the summnding area, when we look at this
it's like trying to stufTten pounds into a five pound bag. I think ifhe could have a petting zoo aJld a
fireworks stand he'd put it in there as well.
It's a vcry high density, east coast style end design, and it goes against our conU11Unities.
Our communities arc resort style communities, low density with resort style amenities.
The dcnsity of this projcet is more than double what the density is in aJ1Y ofthe surrounding
communities.
I also think the developer may not have as much knowledge of the demographics in Naples
by building this type of community. I think hc is limiting its appeaL And I think he's also using a
2005 market plan. And the market as we know has changed 180 degrees from what it was.
As you can see, I've put one of his line developments up there. He builds low-end tenement
style developments. And that is his corporate D.N.A., if you will, and that's what we're going to get
on a prime piece of property in Collier County. And that's what we're against.
All of our quality of life in that area will suffer because of increased congestion and density.
The project will also have a negati ve impact on alrcady poor property values in that area.
I think we also believe that this affordable housing is a ploy. It's to increase his density so
he can increase his protitabiJity. Aff(,rdablc housing is abundant within a one-mile radius of this
project.
We have an e-mail fhllll the county showing that over 4,200 aff(,rdable housing slots have
been approvcd, and only 500 have bcen built. And that sort of leads us to believe that there's really
not a necessity 1(11' that designation.
Recent eomp. sales on Zillo.eom, anybody can get on Zillo, and it shows that condos are
sclling i(lI'less than $1 OO,OOll, townhomes j(lr the mid ISO's, and single-Iamily homes in the low
200's. I don't think we need any more added density; the county is tlooded with allordable housing.
It may have been necessary during the bubble 01"04 to '07, but the market has changed, and it's no
longer relevant. We're back to a normal market.
I think the market that we saw where atl()rdable housing was in such great demand was
Agenda lIem No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 99 of 407
indeed an aberration. And now we're baek to probably below nonnal, to be honest. But the Wall
Street Joumal says that 30 perccnt of homes are under water, and one in 77 are in some state of
foreclosure, which leads us to believe there will be more foreclosures coming and more affordable
housing coming.
And the other thing to note is HUD has designated our zip code, 34112, as one of the three
zip codes in Collier County that has a major foreclosure issue. They've invested to buy almost 60
homes, and they are rehabbing thosc homcs and putting them on the market for low income
individuals.
The other issuc that we have of course is the commercial space. And the last thing we saw
was 35,000 square feet of space he was looking to have approved. Although I hcar now that that's
ehallgcd.
But I will point out that within a one mile radius; occupancy rates are abysmal in retail
ccnters. The Wal-Mm1 shopping center, which is one mile down the road, is not even leased. I think
it's maybe three or t(lUr percent leased. And most shopping centers are at 50 to 60 percent and
heading south. And there's more capacity coming on line. Within the next two years we're going to
have several million square feet of retail space in that area not needed.
Any rctailer will tell you, they have a dittieult time surviving in the Collier County market,
which has a part-time population, alld it drops 40 perccnt during ofT season. With the fixed costs of
being in retail, you "imply have to have business year round, and it is very difficult to makc it in this
county.
The other thing is major retailers have stopped expanding and arc increasing their presence
on the Internet, because more people are choosing to shop on line. Therefore, commercial space is
kind of ridiculous at this point.
Another point I'd like to make is. you know, County Barn right now -- I think this project is
a nonstarter unlcs> County Barn gets Widened. Ihe traffiC there is still very dJttlcult. It's a dangerous
intersection. And I would say there's at least one accident there every day that I sec. And to add
more capacity to that is -- again, is detrimental to quality of life.
In conclusion, I would like to say li)r full disclosure. we have hired an attol1ley, Anthony
Pires. Anthony is concentrating on the technical flaws of this proposal, of which therc arc many. I'm
eel1ainly not qualified to speak on the technicalllaws. I mean. we've heard quite a few of them
today.
I also wonder why this meeting occurred during this time of year when most of our
residents are not around. I don't know ifthat's by coincidence or by design.
But in conclusion. over 2,500 homcowners in the surrounding area are against this. We
think this project needs major revisions. The qw!lily of life for all of us will sufTer because of this
project. Sumlllllding property values will sutkr.
And, you know. Mr. Goldmeier has no ties to this community. I think his Icgacy will be that
he leaves us with another Whistler's Cove with an unleased strip center on one of East Naples' most
strategic corners. And I think we must f(lree him to do better, we deserve better, and Naples
deserves better. This is not Dade County.
I urge Mr. Goldmeier, gct back to the drawing board. We extend an olive branch to work
with him to get this project in eonl()J'Jnity so that we can all live with it. And I would urge him to
take what I say very seriously and work with us so we can make this a better project. Because as it
stands now, I and the residents of the surrounding area would ask the County Commissioners to
vote no against the re7.0ning of this property. And that's all I have to say. Thank you vcry much fell'
your time.
Agenda ttem No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 100 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Evan, before you leave the mie., I just want to make a couple
points.
A lot of the details of this property were laid out in 2004 and 2005 with the approval of the
GMP. Those conditions in the GMP this board cannot change. And they -- neither can the applicant,
neither can the staff. They have to abide by them.
What is at stake here today is the interpretation of those conditions. But I just want you to
know, the atfordable housing aspect of it has to be there. It cannot go away.
The commercial component, it's probably not what we expected, what we saw today.
Maybe through further discussion there's an opportunity for more there. But some of the things that
you've seen are going to happen, whether the neighborhood wants to accept them or not because of
the 2004 and 2005 approvals.
So the project may not go forward exactly as it is today, it may, I'm not sure until we get to
our vote. But I want you to know that something's going to go in there, but in some of it we cannot
-- it's beyond our ability to say no to at this point, so --
MR. STEINGART: Yes; and I understand that, Commissioner Strain. I think we're trying to
be as reasonable as we possibly can. And that's why I otfer to work with the developer to, you
know, try and prevcnt something like that happening. That is not in any of our best interests. And
what I am seeing now is that with a strip center.
And so really, let's just try and get this thing cleaned up, get it palatable and, you know, I
think we'll be on board as long as it enhances the community and is not detrimental to it, as we
bclieve it is now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much.
MR. STEINGART: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Pritt, do you want to have a short rebuttal?
MR. PRITT: Yes, Mr. Goldmeier did want to address the board for rebuttal before my
closing statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you vcry much. And I appreciate your patience.
A lot ofthis has been confusing to you, and I have to admit, it's been confusing to mc. This
process has been going on fll!' six years now. Many clements have changed. We've had different
intel1)rctations. And there's been an evolution ofthc project, and unj(lrtunatcly an evolution of the
market as well.
So -- and~ you kno\v, we \vant to create a good product. \Ve want a product not only that's
pleasing to the surrounding community but one that will be an economic success, and we can't have
that without having a good product.
There's a couple of points that I just wanted to briefly touch upon.
Thc one area that we -- the one opportunity wc'rc SOlTY that we missed in dealing with statf
was whcn they proposcd the change to the language to our comp. plan amendment without
inflll'lning us that they were in the process of doing so.
Wc were in the process of having conversations with them about our different
interpretations, density and other elements ofthc project, and I view that as a missed opportunity
because we could have discussed and workcd out some of these other things which need clarifying
now, had we known that there was a compo plan amendment in the works by them and taken the
opportunity to use that eomp. plan amendment to bring more clarity to the situation.
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 101 of 407
The idea ofthe affordable housing and workforce housing was not our idea. It came directly
from the Board of County Commissioners and was requested that we consider including. I don't
want to say it was imposed upon us because we agreed to it, but it was made clear to us at the Board
of County Commissioners' hearing that they wanted to see that as part of the project. And having
built about 1,000 units of atlordable housing mysclf, I u and being an affordable housing advocate
-- and by the way, when it comes to having ties to the community, this is my fourth project in
Collier County, and I've done affordable housing in Collicr County.
But we tound that we did not object to the request of tbe Board of County Commissioners,
and we tried to accommodate thcir wishes.
The disagreement that we had with staff was solely about the tact whether we would be
given an atlllrdable housing density bonus I()!' the al10rdable bousing wc agreed to. That issue was
discussed specifically and clearly in ti'ont ofthc Board of County Commissioners. It was discussed
-- and we have transcripts to indicate our point of view. And that disagrecment as to whether we get
a dcnsity bonus fllr having provided that al1()J'(lable housing basically has distraetcd the entire
attention of us and statfaway f]'om some o('the smaller details that you might havc brought out,
which we'd be glad to work with, we'd be glad to modify. But those details were not addressed in
the process, because we're all busy arguing about the afj(lrdable density bonus, to term it that way.
Thc project was always olle project on 22.~3 acres, with two components. And thosc
components should not be distinguished as being two separate projects or two scparate propel1ies,
they're tWll different components of the same project.
And viewing them as two separate properties or two separate parcels brings I think more
contusion to the situation than need be. It's one projeet with two different uses on the same property.
If we were otfcred the opportunity by the right-ot~way people to have a road entrance closer
than 1,000 feet jj'llI11 the interseetioll of County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard, we would have
taken it. We were not otlered that. 1(' olkred that today as an additional optIon, we would gladly
take it. l3ut we were not offered that prior to -- I didn't hear the possibility of that happening until
this meeting today.
We made it clear Ih1l11 the beginning that this could be a rental or home ownership project.
And especially in a market -- under market conditions today where it is difficult fllr a purchaser to
get a mortgage, the rcntal option has to be av'ailable, because otherwise the propel1y will havc no
chance of moving j(lrward.
Wc did plan to build more commercial. we intended to build more commercial. but that's
not the way things worked out as our access seemed to be less -- make it a less desirable commercial
site.
/\nd, you kno,v, that's basica!l:-/ -- \ve huilt -- we put in the a1nount of cOllllnercial that we
had room tllr and we had parking f(,r. and that's how the amount of commercial was arrived at.
The type of commercial, we becamc increasingly concerned about the other shopping
centers going up in the area with superior access and superior visibility. and basically migrated to a
more live/work situation where you can have a professional living above his design studio, shop or
something like that.
So the concept did change ti'llI11 the beginning, hut it did change in response to market
t(llTeS and other trends.
To address Evan's concern about the property that they had up that he put up on that, I built
1,000 units of atllmlable housing: that's only one o/'the projeets. I'd be glad to show you my other
projects, including one new Collier County, that I get a lot of compliments on, and I think Mr.
Midney could tcll you that my project in Collier County is well received.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 102 of 407
That property was -- you know, I put 10 pounds in a five pound bag on that admittedly.
That was built in the City of Key West at the request of the City of Key West. And the Key West
authorities love the project, because I'm providing affordable housing in a close-in location,
convenient to everybody. And I only had two acres to build on, because I had a wetland concern on
the site. So that is a very successful project that is being -- you know, I continue to receive support
from the City of Key West for that project.
And we do not intend to build that kind of product here. Building costs are different. We
didn't have to truck in concrete and truck in water and deal with the construction costs that we had
to deal with in Key West. So we had constraints in Key West that we don't have here. And we of
course intend to build the type of projects more similar to the pictures we showed you than the
pictures that Evan showed you.
I would be glad to work with the neighbors. I called Evan several times, was not able to
spcak with him. We did have some e-mails back and forth.
And I think Kay can tell you, we've reached out to all of our neighbors at Falling Waters
and at the other communitics, and we've found. a 10Uifsupport in the other communities.
When we had our two neighborhood infol111ation meetings, people came out objecting to
the affordable housing n affordable and workforce housing. That was tbeir primary objection.
Now, again, that was not my idea. That was not what we rcquested. That's what the Board
of County Commissioners asked us to include.
But just so you understand, thc affordable housing requirement that we have now is
between n is no lowcr than 80 percent of median income and no higher than] 20 percent of median
meomc.
Eighty percent of median income is $40,000 for a tiullily of one and maybe $45,000 fix a
family of four. That's the lowest income we're talking about. And 120 percent of median income f(lr
a family of four, that wouid be 80, $90,OUO.
So thesc n this is not what you'd consider quotc, unquote affordable housing, and it should
not be characterized as producing thc kind of problems, property management problems that people
are fearing. Because you're talking about people with incomes betwecn 40,000 and let's say
$80,000. And that's our requirement. And these people could easily be homeowners as well as
renters.
We would appreciate your support and want to work with you as far as any of your
eoncel11s. And we have a lot to -- you know, a lot of idcas as to how to move forward and want the
opportunity to do so. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Goldmeicr.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes. sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me suggest something to you. because I have great respect for
your attorney, Mr. Pritt. You have a talented group ofpeoplc working f(lr you, and you have all the
tools to have done what I think would have been a more thorough job in telling us what's going to
happen with that property than what I personally have seen today.
The concepts you're introducing arc somewhat new to the way we've scen standards before.
In order to suppol1 those concepts, in the past every time something new comes forward there's a lot
more detail. Thc site plans are more detailed along -- I know you can move into thosc as you go
fUl1her, but just for thc fact we had it used as a talking point, the concept site plan that your n one of
your team members brought here today to try to understand your standards is an example of what
we could have used to sink our tecth into to better move forward today.
MR. GOLDMEIER: I have floor plans with me, if you'd like to see them. I just didn't want
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 103 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, if we sat here today and tried to go through and rewrite
this PUD document in a manner that was more understandable to terms and acknowledgmcnts of
what you wanted to build, we're going to be here all day, and that's not what our job is.
I would suggest that aftcr we linish further down the road and you hear our concerns during
discussion, if you want to ask for a continuanec, you don't have to peg a date to it, to provide you to
come back with more time to get with the ncighborhood and try to work out your ditferenccs and
get back with staff and work out the situation, you might tind that another avenue, rather than if it
looks like this is going to be not positive f()r you to go to the BCC with that kind of
recommendation.
And I know -- like I said, I know you've got all the good people working with you. But
there's no mileage in all of us getting into cOUl1 to settle this when I think it could be done in much
more fi-icndlier tel1ns. And you have options out there that if you wanted t6 apply them, they may
get you a little bit closer to where you need to be and at the same time produce a better product for
the ncighborhood.
MR. GOLDMEIER: If you may recall, we had this discussion when I had prcsented a
project across ti'Om the casino in Immokalec --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. GOLDME!ER: -- that we wound up going back, because we had not created a site
plan beeausc we weren't rcquired to do so. And we wound up ercating a sitc plan and it was
supported unanimously by your board and went on the consent agenda, thc BCC, and it worked
very well. And of course we'd bc willing to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think part of this whole process is the sales and the tools to
make the sale, ti'ommy perspective, having bcen here today. And I just wanted to express that to
you, because i stiil have some hllpc. Mayhe we don't go l()[ward with a negativc vote that this can
be pulled, you guys eould reeonsidcr your position. get together with the neighborhood, take your
time, tind out whcre all the prohlems arc.
And I certainly think you'll get a reading on the density issue with us today. Wc do provide
rceommendations to the BCC. Our recommendations arc many times honored by thcm. So if we
tend to concur with stan~ that may be an indication you may need to work harder towards a
resolution of that dcnsity that's in linc with stalf as well. so--
MR. GOLDMEiFR: Well. we'd be prepared to get together with staff and neighbors and
even members of the board, because we actually do have full-blown drawings of the idcntical
product that we're planning. We call gin' you -- wc can give you whatever you want, basically.
C! LJ:\.!R.~1!\N STRAIN: \VI..'!!. and! think that'~ somdhing that ought to he considered the
next time around. It's a little bit late today. We've got to have time to review it, it's got to be on
record. But I think that's an opportunity that is open to you as we finish up with this --
MR. GOLDMEIER: Please. if we can keep this moving and not delayed, bceause I've been
through six )/cars nf'dday1s so I~lr.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. as we get done with discussion today and you hear our input,
if it 10llks like it may be somcthing you might want to continue. I'll make that offer be1()re thc votc.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank Y"U.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to you and Mr. Pritt thcn.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you very much. Let me turn it over to Bllb.
CI [AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. Mark'l
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 104 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Goldmeier, let me ask you one question, and I'll try to
be quick.
Essenfially what you really want is the density number, a unit number. Why don't you
rcduee the area of the mixed use site? The five acres is a maximum. So based on the testimony,
you've heard everybody describe the density, can't you corral 91 units and shops in a smaller area,
giving you the other area to use the other density to bring your count up? I mean, it's -- eighth grade
algebra equation would give you what you need.
MR. GOLD MEIER: Well, thank you tor bringing that up, Mr. Schiffer. There is one issue
that is basically a killcr which, you know, that staff was creating an interpretation which would
create problems for evcryone, including us.
Because their interpretation that we have to place 91 units on that small little area would
force us into a much more dense, you know, tall urban project than we want to build. We wanted to
be able to take whatever thc density was and spread it around the site so that it doesn't impact one
pm1icular area, especially the area that's the most visible at that majqr intefscetion.
So by putting -- you know, by handcuffing us and saying if you get a bonus you have to use
this bonus in this one tight little place, that's not beneficial. And that's just one ofthe issues we need
to have your guidance on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's rcsolve that issue right now. Because that's not how I read
this. And I'd sure like Corby or someone to come up and opine on that particular point. Because if
that's a stumbling block, maybc one we can resolve quickly.
Corby, the question is docs he have to put 91 units on the five-acre conunercial arca, or
could he reducc thc five-acre commercial area to lcss and put less units there ifhe wanted to?
MR. SCHMIDT: The answer to the first haif is no, he does not have to put ail 91 in
thc commcrcial componcnt.
And the answer to the second half is ycs. The flexibility is built into the sub-district
language so it can be no larger tlum five acres. If it reduces that area, the calculations also change
along with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe wantcd to put two acres of commercial with 10 units, would
that be acceptable?
MR. SCHMIDT: It may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Mr. Goldmeier, I think we're a good portion of the
way fell' you to take a closer look at what you're designing here.
Thank you, Corby, appreciate it.
Mr. Pritt, did you want to make any final comments?
MR. PRITT: I just told my clicnt I can't say it any better than he had, and that probably
anything I would say would bc not hclpfuL so I'm going to waive any closing statement.
I think Ms. Deselem was waiving anyhow. And I asked her a little while ago, so I'll waive
anything further. Obviously we'd be interested in hearing what your discussion is today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
And Ray, we're donc with public speakers, so we'll close the public hearing [md go into
discussion.
Mr. Klatzkow, you're looking kind of puzzled.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, I am. This is a mixed use development and I'm kind of
concerned we'rc going to be shrinking down the conunercial to the point tlwt this is now a
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 105 of 407
residential development.
I mean, when the Board of County Commissioners approved this on your recommendation,
there was a certain concept in mind. And I understand that the economy has changed and things
have changcd, but this was approved as a mixed unit development, and we'rc starting to talk about
this is now almost purely residential development. He's getting, what is it, four units per acre
because this is a mixed unit, but it's not a mixed unit. So I'm just raising a coneelll here that __
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think it's a valid concem, but as I had asked -- and Corby or
David, maybe one of you need to come up here and address this specitic issue. When I asked you if
this meets the mixed use conditions in which thc bonus would be provided, you had said earlier it
docs. And the fact they've reduced the commercial to what it was --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can't put in a peanut stand on 22 acres and now call it mixed.
There has to be some rationality here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we need somc minimum guidelines to know what that
rationality is. And if -- and that's exactly what the question carlier was asked for.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wcll, Mr. Chair, it was really Ray that gave the answer
that yes, therc's no limit as to the mini -- I mean, you can put the joke was a phone booth and you
got it. So that's h
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand all that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- why we asked the question. Once Ray gave an absolute
answer. that's the condition we have to deal with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand all that, but Mr. Klatzkow's raising the question
again. I want to get as finn ohm answer and a eonscnsus on this, because iftbis goes back into
IT-discussion again and comes back to another time, I want to make sure it comes back in a manner
that everybody has gottcn a "IiI' shake at how they've analyzed it and desit,'ned it.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And j was just going to say, sooner or later thIS IS gomg to be Board of
County Commissioners. And if they don't have an issue with it. I don't have an issue with it. But
they may raise this as an issue.
And I'm supportive ofthat. Imeall. when you go through a eomp. plan analysis, whcn you
go to the eommunitics, when you're makillg promises this is what it's going to look like and we're
giving you special densities because of that, when you come back and you put up a peanut stand and
now you say aha, it's mixed use, no. that's bait and switch.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree.
MR. KLAT7KOW: Now, it's h
MR. PRITT: I object to that.
MR KL/\TZKOW: -- as simple as that.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show Mr. Pritt objected to that statement.
MR. PRITT: Come on. JetI now I object to that --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, IlO. no, no.
MR. PRITT: -- there's 110 bait and switch --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, one at a time. one at a time.
MR. KLA T7KOW: You cannot come to the board and ask l(lI'j()ur units of extra density
and then a couple years say well, you know what, we dOIl't rcally want thc eommcrcial but we'rc
going to still keep it allyway. It strikes me as inherently wrung.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David. based on the language in the GMP and the way you guys
would have to interpret it, wherc are we limitcd in the amount of commercial and/or residential that
goes in the commercial tract. both size and quantity"
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 106 of 407
MR. WEEKS: I have to agree with what Ray had stated earlier and that is there simply is no
minimum. All we have is a maximum.
I agree with Jcffs comment. And staff in the back of the room, we had some discussion
about this as well, we have some concern about how small the actual conullercial development is
getting in rela --Imcan, I won't use the same words as Jeff, but it just seems inappropriate at some
point that the amount of commercial being provided is so small. Is this what was envisioned when
wc considered a mixed use project?
But the black-and-white answer is there is no minimum here, there's none stated in the sub-
district, it's only a maximum. So if they nan'Owed this down to 1,000 feet of commercial, it's still
mixed use as the definition would apply, a mixture of cOlllillcrcial and residential.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, which is the problem that I think I'm -- go ahead, Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But you said before tbat this sub-district was patterned after
the residential mixed use.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And in there it says that the mixed use is --I think it said to.
be residential above commercial, not to create strip malls. This is creating strip malls.
MR. WEEKS: I think it uses the tenll strip commercial, perhaps.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, whatever.
MR. WEEKS: Well, I'm not splitting hairs, thcrc is a ditlcrenec. A strip mall is a particular
type of building. A strip commcrcial refers to a pattem of development, typically shallow--
commercial dcvclopment, shallow in depth, long, you know, linear, and frequently with many
access points.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark')
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer -- arc you done, Karen?
COMMISSIUNER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Sehiffcr'!
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David. you know, and since we're the board that actually
reviewed it, if the they describe something, they're using words like new urbanism, new town, smart
growth and all that other stuff. Can't we interpret it, based on the words they're using'! I mean, can't
we say wc think those words have meaning and maybe it was sold to us as being somcthing else?
I mean, you know, new urbanism is not just, you know, putting all the units on the front of
the strect. There's a lot of things -- we've had a community character plan. That plan has been, you
know, relerred to in this. That plan had certain expectations of walk-ability and all that other kind of
stuff The neighbors arc actually saying they wish they could walk across the street to a cotfce shop
or something.
So can't we makc that judgment, even though you don't bave a technical way to do it?
MR. WEEKS: Sure, I think you can. I mean, in your capacity as a recommending body to
the Board orCounty Commissioners, as thc local planning agency under state law, I believe you do
have that authority to make the recommendation, just as staff makes the recommendation. And
ultimately the board will decide, should they be intcrested in approving this project, they would
dceide is this the appropriate mix of uses, the appropriate amount ofthe typcs of uses as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the words that Mark read out ofthc past minutes,
ean't we hear those words and determine whether this is t~lct meets that description and decide
whcthcr in fact it met that -- you know, it's what wc intendcd it to be?
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
A~jenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 107 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at the same time, though, j think what led to this discussion is
Mr. Goldmeicr was under the impression that he had to put some number of units on that
commercial piece. It was 91 was the word. He docsn't have to put 91 units there, though, is that
correct, David'!
MR. WEEKS: I'm rcading ovcr the language again just one marc time. I know Corby's
already answered it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it says 91 units in the sub-district, which to me means the
cntirety 22 acres. 91 residents shall be developed in the sub-district.
And I saw that as a minimum till' thc overall development. And if they put some above the
commcrcial to get the mixed usc, that works, but they could still have some in the other parts of it,
but that was a minimum they had to create.
MR. WEEKS: I would agrce with that, that they do not have to place the 91 units all on the
commcreial componcnt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now it would up to them to produce a plan that meets a
balance hctwecii what is truly mixed, or acceptable as mixed use to this board's impression, as well
as thc BCC, but they don't have to pack in 91 units on that commcrcial propel1y to get therc. They
could put a nice commercial plaza in there with some professional ofTiccs and residential above, and
they would still meet a mixed use complement of some type.
I dun't ha\'c quantities in mind. I'm just talking about cOllcepts.
MR. WEEKS: I missed that that was actually a question, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll, okay, it wasn't a question, it was a statement that I guess is
just an idea.
So anyway, I think with that we've heard enough of this. Does anybody have any more
qucstions of David or anybody ofthis issue"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I would like to opcn it up t()rjust discussion amongst the
Planning Commission members now about where we see this going and standing. and based on that
discussion, when wc finish with discussion I'll ask the applicant ifhe wants to continue. And ifhe
doesn't or ifhe docs. this board can then make a decision on whethcr they want to vote on it and
we'll go fjum there.
Okay. Ms. Caron'l
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think it would be a real disservice to both petitioner
and to the neighborhood if this was nol continued. I think it needs to be continued. Therc's lots out
therc that nceds to be settled. I thillk a lot has been aired hcre today that now can be scttled, and we
lwcd 10 move it 1txward. and! wuuld suggest th~lt we do continue.
CIIAIJ~MAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask each member, ifthcy'rc not uneomf(lrtable with it, to
comment on this, But as you're includillg your comment, I'd like your thoughts on the density. And
it can be real brief: it can be do you believe the higher densitv is the right calculation or do you
believe stafrs interprctation of density is the right calculation.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I belicve that stafl's inte'lxctation ofthc dellsity is the correct
OIlt.'.
CI IAIfUv],.,\N STRAIN: Okay. And I'll n why don't Imovc right to Jell. I'll go Mr. Midney
and then on that row. and then I'll come back over to you. Mr. Vigliotti.
1\11'. Midney"
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: No\\ I wish I had asked the developer if the staff density
would be something that he could li\c with.
Agenda ttem No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 108 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you can still ask the developer that. Any planning
commissioner member can ask questions, so we'll -- but it will be strictly limited to that response, if
you could, Mr. Goldmeier.
MR. GOLD MEIER: If I have to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do bclieve that the applicants' density is the one
that's good. One of the benefits of it is you gct morc affordable units from it, based on the
percentage.
But my biggest concern is really with the site plan. I would never support a site plan that
puts all those units up on the intersection of a road and then puts the stores in a better spot. This to
mc is -- I would nevcr support this site plan. So I have bigger problems than density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I support the staff's determination of density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also support the staff regarding dcnsity, but my big
problcm is lack of detail, and I said it helllre. Based upon the dctail giving to me here, there's no
way I could approve it or vote for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Again, aflcr a lot of confusion and thinking about this, I
finally get stan's interpretation of dcnsity. But I agree with Commissioner Schiller that I don't
nceessarily agree with that corner packed in with units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But as far as the density goes, do you think the calculation
produced hy stan: which is 234, or the calculation produced by the applicant 01'286'1
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The 234, Without a doubt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with the staff's interpretation of the density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I too agree with statl's interpretation of the density.
I also have problems with the buffering on the south side; the adequacy of the unknown
casement to the south that wasn't provided in any of the backup documentation; the development
standards tablc that I wcnt through in detail. I think that the compatibility of the development
standards can he -- to the neighborhoods and across the way could bc looked at a little bit more and
retined to better standards than what were presented today.
I think that the inconsistencies with the aH(mlable workjl)rcc housing density bonus
agreement and the other documents need to bc corrected. Staff's findings wcre based on 10.5 units
pCI' acre, not 12.5, so the tindings, if there was any changes in that, would havc been otI
And 1(11' all those reasons, and all thc ones we went through today, I could not support this
application.
Now, Mr. Pritt, if we go to vote on this, it looks like it would bc a no vote. And I want to
ask you, would you likc to continue this to another time'> And can be time indefinite. And you'll
need to use the microphone to respond. And if so, line. I f not, we're going to vole on it, so __
MR. PRITT: May I check with my client?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cel1ainly.
MR. PRITT: We would likc to ask tor a continuance.
I do have a couple of questions, though, as to how long that would bc. I know that the staff
is going to havc a --
P"wm1a Item No SA
December 14, 2010
Page 109 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I l' they wanted to do a continuanec, any particular length of time, is
therc a minimum and a maximum that they can go?
MR. BELLOWS: I was discussing with thc assigned planner Kay Deselem, and given the
workload and vacations mixed in through the intennitting time, we were thinking that August 6th,
Planning COIll1l1ission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the earliest that they could come back?
MR. BELLOWS: I would bclieve so.
MS. DESELEM: If I can jump in, too. A lot of it dcpends on when they get something back
in to us to review. And then we're going to nced time to review it and prepare it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why my second part of the question was what's the
maximum. Is there any limitation to how long thcy can continue I(lr?
MS. DESELEM: Six months.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Six months. So any time hum August to six months?
MS. DESELEM: But thc dcal is in the Land Dcvelopment Code a project has to be
ongoing. actively seeking somdhin-g~- or iCs deemed withdrawn due to inactivity.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record. I'd like to make a elariflcation on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do.
MR. BELLOWS: And evidence can be submitted to go longer than the six months.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think ifthcy'rc interacting with staff and submitting
paperwork --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and meeting with the neighborhood to try to resolve their issues
MR. BELLOWS: Ycah.l think that's what--
CHAIRMAN STRldN: -- I think that's surely signiticallt that -- okay.
So Mr. Pritt. so what it boils down to, I think you havc -- the earliest. if you could get
everything accomplished, would be August. but it's indctinite past that. So we could at your request
grant you an indefinite continuance.
Thc idea would be that you would be meeting with the ncighborhood on the premise of
trying to work out your dilferenees. as well as with stat{ transportation and others.
And I would tell Y(lll that all thc discussion herc ought to be weighcd into your new
cOl1sidcrati(lIls.
rvlR. PRITT: August (lth is tille,
MR. BELLOWS: And if we could get somc typieals of what the setbacks would be tor the
structures.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think to come back without the detail that this board necds
would be just a wastc of their time.
MR. BELLOWS: I just walllcd to makc surc that the typicals arc--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti"
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I believe thcy know what we want or what wc're looking
I()r at this point.
CI-IAIIUvlAN STRAIN: Wcll. I think we'vc expressed all our coneelllS here today, yeah.
Ray"
MR. BELLOWS: David correctly reminded me to inl(lfIl1 you all that after five weeks it
would have to bc re-advertised, too.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I would expect that, yeah.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 110 of 407
Okay, so -- go ahead, Kay?
MS. DESELEM: If I may, that kind of assumes that they're going to be submitting within
30 days --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MS. DESELEM: -- so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I think what we're going to suggest is that there be -- a
continuance would be granted with no -- we'rc not going to put a time frame on it. When it happens,
it happens.
If Mr. Pritt wants to make it happen by August 6th, he's got to do it faster. It ifhe takes
more time to work with the neighborhood and everybody else involved, thcn it just takes more time.
But I wouldn't want to hinge it on too short of a period and not have accomplished the
communications that are needed to get this done right. Because this is a good location, and this
could come back as a really good project. I just think you need more time to work it out, to be
honest with you.
So with that in mind, Mr. Pritt, arc those statements gencrally in ab'feement with you?
MR. PRITT: That would be fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is therc a motion to accept a request of indefinite
continuance on this particular project?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
Is there any other diseussion'l
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, arc we good?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think you're very good, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that in mind, all those in favor of the motion, sib'l1ify by
saymg aye.
COMM1SSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyhody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries ~-().
And I want to thank you all very much I()r your time and patience, thc public as well. Please
get together and work things out bct()re you come hack to us again. That would be very helpful.
Thank you again.
Okay, we still have another case here today. Mr. Wolfley is going to be departing. We'll
move into the othcr issues.
Naples Daily News. Sunday, October 24, 2010 . tf..,
,
Legals
Legals
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, November 9, 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 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMM!SSIONERS, AMENDING ORDI-
NANCE NUMBER '2004-4t, AS AMENDED, THE COLlIE~ ,.EOUNTY LAND DEVElOP-
MENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING RtGULATIONS FOR
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFI-
CATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY fROM THE ESTATES (E) ZON-
ING DISTRICT TO THE MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVElOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING
DI$TRIG FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE DAVIS RESERVE MPUO. THE PROJ-
ECT 15 PROPOSING A MAXIMUM OF 234 DWELLING UNITS, INCLUDING AFFORDA-
BLE HOUSING UNITS AND A MAXIMUM OF 35,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERClAL-
IOFFICE USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 22.83 ACRES, IS TO BE lO-
CATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULE-
VARD (SR 84) AND COUNTY BARN ROAD, IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6829, Collier Davis, llC, represented by Robert Andrea of
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.. is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E)
zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district
for a project to be known f1~ the Davis Reserve MPUD to allow for the development
of ii maximum of 234 d'....eiling ~:l:t~ i:ldudirlg affordable hOL!~ing :!nd a maw:im'_!m
of 35,000 square feet of commercial retail and office uses. The subject property,
consisting of 22,B3 acres, is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersectIon of
Davis Boulpvard and County Barn Road, In SectIon 8, Township 50 South, Range 26
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
County administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed.
Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an in-
dividual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recog-
nized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for il group or organization may be allotted
10 minutes to speak on an item.
Persons wishing to have written, or graphic materials included in the Board agenda
packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective
publIC heanng. In any case, written matenals intended to be ronsidered by the
Board shall be submItted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days
rrtor to the public hearing, All material used In presentations before the Board
will become a permanent part of the record.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure 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 di~ability who needs any accommodation in order to par-
tlClpate 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 . TalT!iarni T~ail East, Buildm9 W.. Naples, Florida. ,34112,
(239)252-8380; A~slsted Ilstef1lng devlce~ 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: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk
(SEAL)
Ortnhpr'l1 '010
NolRHDO
/l..genda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
'Page 111 of 407
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14,2010
Page 112 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***()kay, the ncxt one, and I'll read it off, it's PUDZ-20004-AR-6829, the Davis
Reserve MPUD.
This is one that had been in front of us a year or so ago. It's come back after more communications and
changes in design.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
Speakers as well. Anybody that's going to speak, testify, that's going to stand up here and want to say anything, it
doesn't matter if you're registered or not. I'm going to ask for general audience comment at the end, and if you
think you're going to comment, now is the time to stand up. You have to stand up, and this lady will swear you in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And now l()r the issue. We have had a flood of e-mails to all tbe
Commissioners OIl this matter. And we have to go through disclosure. So I'll start.
Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just e-mail.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just what came through the county e-mail.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Same.
COMMISSIONER CARON: E-mail.
CHAtRMAN STRAtN: Diane')
COMMISSIONER EBERT: County c-mail.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob?
COMMISSIONI'R MURRAY: County e-mail. and perhaps a ycar ago I met Mr. Goldmeier at an East
Naples Civic Association meeting where he was boosting his project.
CHAIRMAN STRAtN: Karcn?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I was at the same meeting that Mr. Goldmeier was at for the Civic
Association in the past. And I just want to mention that 1 received through the county e-mail 45 e-mails. I
received Ol1e \vrittcn letter and olle phone message at home, all opposed to this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I too have reccived a slew of c-mails. I had met with one of the
community associations a long time ago, I can't rememher if it was before or after the last time we spoke on this
issue, J did talk to Mr. Prill yesterday about some issues that we will discuss today, as well as county staff And I
believe that's everything I can remcmher right lH1V/.
So with that, Mr. Pritt, it's all yours.
MR. PRITT: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Robert Pritt. I'm
with the taw firm or Rocl1e1 and Andress.
And speaking of long journeys, this is something Jilllll 2004 and we continue to be in front of you. And
we're seeking today for your linal approval oCthe Davis Reserve PUD document.
BaiTY Goldmeier is here with me. Ilis brother, Lee Goldmeier cannot be here. But together they are
owners orCollier Davis, LLC, the owner ofthc propc11y in question.
Also with me is the project team. Robert Andrea. who's the agent and the planning consultant, he's with
Coastal Engineering Consultants.
Brian DeLoll)', YOll Illay see his name \vith regard to the documents, he was the project engineer with __
also with Coastal Enginecring. He is -- he continnes to be deployed in Iraq. Regardless of what you may have
read in the paper, we still do have people in Iraq. And he's not able to be hcrc.
But we do have Mike Delate, who's ti'om Q. Grady Minor, and he's here witll us today. He's done a
review ofthe engineering aspects of this application.
And Talllmy Lyday -- is she here yet? Tammy's here. She!s an environmentalist with Ealth Balance.
'{OU\lC heard fh)1ll most of the project team at the previous hearing. I know that not all of you were on
the board. But they have previously been swom and accepted as experts in their fields, with the exception of Mike
Delate. But I understand that he has testiJied here many limes. And wc would ask that he be qualified, recognized
as an expclt project engincer -- or an engineer I'(x this project.
We also have tramc engineering, Ted Trcesh. Same goes f(x Ted, he's been here on behalf of us and in
Page 1 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 113 of 407
fronl of you on 11lclllY occasions.
And also Matt Polak of Chisolm Architects. lie was here last year also. There was a discussion at that
time concel11ing what typical buildings might took like in a project, in a iinished project. And he's here today also
for anything that he can add 011 that issLle. 1 kllO\\' that thercls a lot of coneem about what a project is going to look
like, so hels back with us today.
I woutd likc the opportunity Il)r cross-examination and would like to reserve a few minutes for rebuttal
and a closing statemcnt. I think that's standard with this Commission. as well as any other quasi-judicial body.
This is PlIDZ-2004-AR-6829. Davis Reserve MPUD. This is the culminat;on of a planning and zoning
process that's heen going Oil since at least 2004. ltls a proposed mixed use PUD with affordable housing -- with an
affordable housing clement.
The petitioner requests that the Collier COllllty Planning COlllmission consider the rezone for the subject
site from I~slates. which is I: zoning district to mixed LIse planned unit development, MPUD zoning district, for
this project. A.nd it is named DJ\'is Reserve, [vtPtH).
As I said, J think the Chair said this, a petition came on tlJJ' hearing on May 7th bell)re this body -- May
7th, 2009. A.t the hehest of the Planning Commission at that hearing, my clicnt'has reduced the proposed density
from 286 units to 234 units and has eliminated the request for an alTord8blc housing density bonus. You don't
nced an ;:IlTordab1e IJl)usill~ density bOllus if you're not asking for -- you don't need more than 234 units if you're
not asking Illr the dellsily honlls. So tl1,l1. Wl'\'l' rl'l1lo\'cd tlwt.
S01lle (lfY()UIlW)' recalL or iry()u I'Ylk a1 tlli,: nntes ill the transcript from the last hearing. you will see that
that \-vas a hig issue at that hearing. So the applicalioll y'lHl have in front of you is 234 units.
Also, at the Commission's request Mr. Cioldmeier has obtained the access casement agreement with the
next door Ileighbor, Bereall Baptist Church. And that was an issuc that was -- there was a question at the time
whether or not the agreement tn provide ;:lll casement was suf'llcient. And during the interim period of time
hetween then and now, we just went <lh~ad and golth~ ~ascll1Lnl fhml the next door neighbor.
As 1\/Ir. ^ndrea will con!irm. and as has been provided in the ^pril 20th, 2010 resubmission, all deviation
requests have heen removed. the huIT~r's heen changed 11-0111 a Type A 1 (J-ll.lOt to a TYVe 15-B.
Park IOC;:ltiollS have heen depicted on the revised master pbn. I'he rear yard setback has increased to fIve
teet. Minimum space between buildings has been rL'v'ised. SpecifIC pCI111itted uses are shown now per the SIC
codes. ^nd as fV'lr. Treesh. our tranic engineer. wil1 sho\v, the transpol1ation issues arc no worse than last year,
and \ve wuuld qualify !()r till' -- !()r appruvi.d un the tnlllspurtatiol1 issues.
The geogrnplliclllocatioll is -- it's 22.03 <.ICIT,-';. 11's located in the snutheast quadrant of the inll:rsection of
Davis Boulevard and COUllty' Barn RO~ld. It's ill the Davis Boulevard'County Ham subdistrict in YOllr Growth
Management Plan. And tlwl's important. !XX:<.lUSl: 111,lt h<.IS heen a n turns nul to he more ofa curse than a blessing,
perhaps. But there is ..1 special suhdistrict fl.)!' this propc!1y_ hII' this project thai \vas created hy the county
C01111ll1SS1\111. /-\nd thc suhdistriet rellecls the wishes of the count),: cO!l11llissionto provide !lJ!" affordable housing.
(joing h,lCk 10 2()()4 and 2()())_ b..lck in lhe ~ilded age. the af/(H"i,bble housing issue \vas perhaps the
hlggcst. nlost1!npurtantlsslle (dung !\.)Gd govenJlllcnts <.ltthe tll11e. 1\1y, hl)\V timcs have changed.
But at thal time tllc county' commission requested ami 1\/1r. (ioldmeier agreed to provide for affordable
housill~, <l1ld up to 20 ]KTCeIlL it was 10 PC1\'C1l1 and I (l pCrCl'll! ill the ('lllllp. Plan. That has become problematic,
as we have lcarn~d \vitl1 tilL' neighbors.
\\/e IlavC had four neighhorhood -- !(lUL thatls right. !i.lllr neighborhood in!()[lllation meetings. The
neighbors in the last inli.mll<.ltioll mccting especially havc riscn lip and said that they don't want affordable housing.
\\/hether that is justi!led or not is somctlling that's ill JI'ont OfY'OLl.
Ilo\\'evcr. therc's nothing tlmt \ve Glll do ..d1oul it. i\S a mailer of fact, I went to the county commission
and filed ;:lll applieahon last -- I think it \vas November or October. was heard in January. I asked the commission
to consider in this current round or Compo Plan amendments to please provide SOlllC relief with regard to this
subdistrict. I asked that that be done prior tt) Novcmber 2nd. which is Amendment 4 election day. it's election day
for other things, but Amendment 4 that ynu arc probably !amiliar with, will be 011 the ballot.
And aller November 41h -- llr :\o\'cmher 2m], if' Amendment 4 passes, which a lot or people think it's
going to pass, there will be no ch,lIlges to comprehensive' plans without a vote or lhe entire county. And we
Page 2 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda tlem No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 114 of 407
cenainly did not want to get caught in that situation, especially in light of the changes that have occurred in the
economy as a whole.
The responsc was that it could not he donc atler -- in good faith, the county, I think, looked at it. And the
response was that it could not be done in the CUlTent round and it could not be done in time to beat the deadline on
Amendment 4. So it was no longer feasible for us to try to make any changes. And we're not at all sure that the
county commission would make any changes. That's something that was not -- there was no commitments made
one way or the other on that.
So the fact is that there's no question -- no matter what you hear today, you'll probably hear a lot of
different things fi'om different people. I don't know what they're going to say. But in the neighborhood
infonnationalmeetings we heard things to me were code words for we don't want affordable housing. One oftbe
code words for we don It \vant affordable housing were, we don't want anordable housing.
As I have testified before in my -- one of my gigs in my earlier career was as general counsel to a large
housing authority. I \vas also in charge of new uevelopmcnt. We had 100 percent federal money from Hun for
developments. I have heard every single argument that possibly can be made, I think, with every single code and
"Fuzzword about why we don't want affordable housing and we don't want it anywhere near us.
And I heard the same thing in the neighhorhood infonnational meetings. Some people were at least
courageous enough to say, we don It \\'311t those kind of people here.
Now, I know what those kind of people mean. And I know that that's a buzzword for improper
consideration of affordable housing. Other people may be thinking they're more clever saying well, \ve don't like
this, we don't tike that, this is this, this is that. Bul bottom line, that is the main issue. We know tbal. We can't do
much about that untess there were some type of relief that could be proposed and be granted by the county
cOlllmission tllwugh interpretatilJn.
But we stand beJllre you today with a Compo Plan amendment that has that in it.
I'vc probably beaten t1wt to death already. But J just wanted to indicate to you and to the public, members
of the public. that it's in the Compo Plan.
Should it have bccn cver put in the Compo Plan? Wcll, there are a lot of things in eomp. plans and the
CiMP that should not he in compo plans. And cities and counties all over this state are no\v rethinking what a
comprehensive plan is all about. It may be too late with A..menumcnt 4 coming. At some cities -- many cities,
sOlnc counties have rushed to the DepaJ1ment of Community Af1airs to change their comprehensive plans to beat
the dcadline. And whether or not that will occur, I don't know. But they're staJ1ing to learn that you don't put
zoning intn compo plans, zoning issues into compo plans, and you keep the plan the plan and the zone the zone.
However, that woutd be nice, thai would be something I(lr the future perhaps, but wc're kind of stuck with
what wc Iwve.
So we stand bet(lre you with a good project. I hope that you've all read the Compo Plan subdistrict
regulations. But -- (lnd if you havcnt just to give you a very brief overview, it's a little bit long, but a brief
overview is this tXll1ieular subdistrict is designed t(lr exactly what we're trying to do, and that's a TND, the
traditional ncighborllOod design.
It's a little bit dilTerenl ti'om a lot ofthc designs that we have here in Collier County, although there arc a
coupte. 1 think Mercato would be an example of onc on a very large scale. But this is something that is very much
still alive and still a velY important type of design. Mr. Polak will tell you a little bit lllore about that, and also
Robel1 Andrea.
And it's a -- it's in the Comprehensive Plan that it would be this type of a design, and welre trying to
design in accordance with that.
With Ihal, I would like 10 turn this over lirst to Roben Andrea and have him give you thc details of the __
some oCthe details orthe proposed plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 1Irst, I'd Iikc to mention to the public the procedure that we're going to go
through. '{ou all -- anybody in this room tl1at wants to comment on this project will have the opportunity.
Thc way we process is the applicant makes a presentation. IIis expelts makes their cormnents. This
cummission then asks thcm questions. We then go into a staff report. \Ve then query the staff any questions we
have of them. And thell we'It linaIty at that point open it up to the pubtic COlllment.
Page 3 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
A[Jonda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 115 of 407
So J ask that you wait patiently. SOIlH: of the presentatiolls you hear may impact what you may want to
say as we rnove on.
Second thing, Nick's not hcre today till' the lirst hour and a hate and Jamie French was going to fill in for
him. And he's afraid to sit in Ihat scat, J understand. But it's good to see you here, Jamie. If we have any
questions, we'll make sure to drag YOLl into them.
Thank you, Bob.
MR. ANDREA: Good moming. I'm Robcr1 Andrea with Coastal Engineering. Bob did a great job of
explaining \\ihat we have going on here today. I'll try to expand on some of the details.
As Mr. Pritt said, we are here today requesting a rezone for the 22.83 acres from Estates zoning district to
a mixed use planned unit development 10 be known as Davis Reserve MPUD.
And there's the map there. '{ou \vant the future land use?
MR. BELLOWS: If you wan!. I'll put on whatever you necd.
MR. ANDREA: This is how it appears on 11le Future Land Use r'vlap.
As you can see. it's on the southeast corner of Davis Boulcvard and County Bam Road.
The propel1ies surrounding this are Napoli Condos to the west. Glen Eagle to the north, Seacrest schools
to the south and cast, and Bercan Church \0 thc south.
The sul~iect property lies within the urban land use designation area. As Mr. Pritt staled, this property has
been design;:lted \v!th its own location-specilic subdistrict within the urhan mixed use district since June, 2005,
when the subdistrict \V<lS appwved.
It's the Davis BoulevarJ.iCoullty Barn Road mixed use subdistrict. It was later amended hy the county
with some language dwngcs and an EAR-based amendment in 2()()7.
Tile subdislricl is comprised Dr the 22.S~ acn:s. And the intent oj" the suhdistrict is to provide for
development that incorporates tnlditional neighborhood design and mixed use neighhorbood design features and
concepts, as well as address the recullllllclHbtioll orthe Collier County Community Character Plan.
'fhese \vill include pedcstrian n"iendl:,,' and bic~'clc n"icndly' stn:ets. small park areas. small plazas. and
other open space, and a mix ofresidcntial and neighborhood cOllllllercialuses.
We also will be integn:lting the rcsidential and thc l'OIlUllercial in the same buildings,
Tile mixed use pof1 illn nf the project is elt the corner nf County Ham Road and Davis. And that's where
the cOllllllcrcial \vill be integrated with the residential. The portion 011 the \vest side oCthe project is the residential
portion. \Ve've located the cOllllllerci,ll there. That is thl' cOllllllcn.::ial componcnt. And it will be easily located by
surrounding propcI1ics tl1<1t \vill be ahk tn \\',Iik tll 11. \'"c han~ sidcw;dk connections that will come out to County
Barn Road. to Davis Boulevard, \Ve'll be Iltlly ,Iccessible hy' the inside ortl1e propel1y and surrounding properties.
UNIIli'NTtFIEIl SPi'/\Kt.R Where', ClHllllv B'lI'1l Road"
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. I'm surrv. vou wun't he "ble lu 'peak fi'omlhe audience unless yuu come up,
and you'll have tn \\'ait until \ve call public speakers. Tlwllk you.
MR. ANDRi'/\: Thcre', CULlnlv Bmll Ro,td Ull the side therc. All right. Cuunty B"m Road is righl here.
Davis Buu1c\'md IS Ollr north houndary'. Ilcre's SC;llTcsl SelHHlls dmvll herc. and Berean Baptist Church.
As Bob lllcntiuned. this subdistrict is required to develop 2() perccnt of its units as atfordahle workforce
housing, As it reads ill the suhdistriL'l. ,\ minilllUlll nf 91 residclllialunits shall be developed in the subdistrict.
This rcllech the densil)' ratio!! SYS1clll\ h;lse dCllsity of J"our dwelling units per acrc applied to the total site
acrc,lgL:,
For the project's total density. whcther it is the minimul1l urthe t)1 dv.!elling units or a greater amount as
allowed by the density rating system and bOllus provisions, and aplxuvlxl via the rezoning. a minimum of 1 ()
percent must he alTurd;lhle workforce housing units provided Ilx tlK)se caming less than or equal 10 80 percent of
the median houselJold income fiX ('ollier County.
Another minimum or 10 percent Illust be alYordahle \\'l)rkforcc housing units provided for those ean1ing
greater than 80 percent hut no greater than Ion percent oCthe 11lcdianlwusehold income.
\Vhat this equates to is the ~() percent median income for a l~lInily of four in Collier County is $57,850 a
y'car. A hundred percent llr the median income for Collier County 11.1r a hUllily of four is 72.300. This is not
]mv-incollle housing, this is workforcc housing.
Page 4 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 116 of 407
What we have proposed is a mixed use plmmed unit development where we'll be applying the traditional
neighborhood and mixed use neighborhood design features and concepts. This includes a denser pedestrian
friendly design, bicycle friendly streets that are integrated with all the buildings and walkable areas, and parking
along the street with small plazas and open spaces. And again, like I said, the mixed use here up in the corner with
the residential and commercial.
We envision people bcing able to work and live here. People that will have small offices in the
commercial portion will be abte to either live on top or livc on the east end ofthe property.
And what we will propose is up to 35,000 square leet of commercial uses in that comer. And the project
is proposed fClr 234 multi-family residential units, which equates to 10.25 units per acre across the entire 22.83
acres.
Twenty perccnt of the 234 units, or 47 units, will be the workforce housing units.
There'll bc a preserve area there. That is in the southeast corncr of the property, approximately 5.29 acres.
There will be a lake lip at the top there along Davis Boulevard, as we!! as other public recreational open spaces and
usable areas.
There'll he an access point on Davis Boulevard, which will be a right in and right out, right there. And
atso the shared access with Bercan Baptist Church, off of County Ham Road.
W c've provided all the landscape burters, setbacks, open spaces as required.
The architectural theme throughout the entire project will be a common architectural theme. There will be
no deviation, no mix matching. Everything will be a common architectural theme.
Last time we were here, May 7th, 200t), there were some concerns over the PUD documents. We went
back and addressed those concerns. And what we've done is we've increased the level of detail on the master plan.
As you can see, we've added the footplints, parking areas, sidcwatks, access points. Pretty much laid out the entire
area there,
We have reduced the proposed density Ii-om 2S(, to 234 units. And as Bob mentioned, that is to -- by
reoucing the density bonus we v../ere aller 1()f affordable housing, we have eliminated that from our proposal.
\\icTvc rcmoved any and all deviation requests Ii-om what is normally expected.
We have increased the huffer area to the south adjacent to the Berean Baptist Church, which is here.
We've increased that li'om 10 ICe! T)11e /\ to a 15-li)ot Typc B, whieh is a thicker butler area.
\\ie have depicted all the park areas on the master plan.
We have tinalized the access agreement with Berean Baptist Church and had that recorded in Collier
County records.
We have provided thc snpplemental analysis of the traffic impaet statement that provides for all the worst
ease scenarios, including sLlpenllarkets.
We've rcloeated as requested the drive otr o!' Davis Boulevard, and we moved that closer to County Barn
Road. I believe now it's within about 660 feet, which is the minimum space requirement.
\\/e have revised the development standard tables, increased minimum setbacks, increased the distance
hetween each of the huildings to half the buildlllg height. as well as reduced thc building height. We have also
increased the lllinilllum sizc or residential units.
When we added the cxaet uses in the permitted uses, we have also included the SIC codes, the standard
industrial classification codes, to better elarify the uses.
Sinee we met last, we\'e worked real closely with stafr \\.'e've had another neighborhood infonllation
meeting. StalThas given their staffrep0l1. \\ie agree \vith them. They are recommending approval of this request.
And we feet that this proieet willl;t nicely into the area, it will give some diversilieationto the area, and it will be
a realniee complcment to the area.
That is what I have, and I will turn it ovcr 10 -- Mr. Gotdmeier would like to say a ICw words.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At some point tell us when it's convenient and wc'll start asking our
questions. I know each of you have something to contribute and it may answer some of our questions ahead of
time.
MR. PRITT: If it's okay with you, I'd like to have -- we'll go ahead and have the presentations, because I
do want to have our architect talk to you about some of the issues hefore we field questions.
Page 5 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item 1"0. 8A
Decenlber14.2010
Page 117 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds fine.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you very much. Since we saw you last, we had another neighborbood
infonnation meeting, and I've met \\lith two neighborhood groups, trying to explain the project.
And I'm here specifically -- I'm not only here as a developer, I'm here basically to explain what the
aff()rdablc workforce llousing restricti()Jl means.
This was not n at jirst this was not our idea when we went ltlr the consolidated plan amendment. We did
not propose it. This came up at the Board of County Commissioners. and it came from the dais, and was inserted
into our plan as a condition of approval. So it was not something that \ve sought. And what we're trying to do is
make the best of it.
But I'd like to claril)' Ol1e thing, that then: are I think a misunderstanding, mainly in the community, that
I've tried to alleviate, I guess unsuccessfully, as to wllClt the label affordable workforce housing is.
Because affordable workJ(xce housing -- let me tell )'OU IiI'S! of all what itls not. Itls not low-income
housing, it's not llUD housing, and I dOllTt believe it':.; <l1l)1hing to be afraid of. I would he concemed if I lived in a
neighborhnod and somcbody w<t\.pUlting a I-IUD project near me, I would he totally cOllcemed. And HUD
projects arc usually 100 percent extrcmely low income, which is ~O, ~5 percent maybe reaching up to 50 percent
of median income. This is SO and lOO perccnt ofareallledian income.
Now, Collier County' itsclflws an area median income n and by the way, all of these are for HlInilies of
the n I'm going to be givillf! you numbers stated I~x the average 1:1Il1ily of fc)Ur. Collier County's median income is
22.7 percent higher than the state medi,1l1 income. Sn 11m going 10 compare what these numbers are in absolute
dot tars to the st"tc.
Thc SII pcrcellt "i't,)rdable n ,,"d I thillk the hig misulldcrst"ndillg eOllles with Collier County labcling SO
percent arJ()rd,lhle. Iryoll I{l()k at varil)L\s IIUD dl1CllllH:nts, SO percent of median income is considered moderate.
FiI1.y and (;{l percent. 5U percent is cunsiden:d lo\\" inc( line -- h() percent is considered luw income, fitly percent
velY Imv income, and 30 and 35 perccnt extremely Ic)\\.' income. So ;.10 percent in BUD documents is considered
lllOderatc inclllne.
But here it's been labeled ai't,lJ'(lable IIlCome. Ai't'1l'llable. And I think that's the big problem. But that
affordable ~o pcrcent number is $.57.XOU. That's the income. I"here <Irc many people I believe in this room who
\\'mild fit into this category. Most people who arc \vorkin.!:! li,1f the count)' and j()r servicc entities would fit into the
income hr,lckd oj'making $57.X()(). And 111<11\ what people arc all'aid or
Nn\v, inthc stale, the S() percellt (lfmcdi,lIl income is :b47..5()().
Now, ",lwlls labeled \vorkji,)rcc illcollle hy' l 'oilier ('OLlllly ,IS 100 perccllt of area median income is
properly labeled, because IILJD considers IO() percent to he \vorkl()rce hOLlsing. But in Collier County, with 22
perccllt higher median income. I ()() percellt is S7:2,J()(). I'hose arc the people that we're going to be required to
include ill our property'. I think they'd be included ill most prnpel1ies throughout thc county anyway, aside from
the highest and. y'llU know. oee<lnlhHl! condos. They'd he many ofyollr ncighbors.
So the main point urthis is that l 'olljlT C~11111tyrs XO percent ormcdiall income of$57,XOO is practically the
sUllie <IS the slale\ averagc 11lCOllle llr I (I() perccllt nlmcdian lllClHnc of $59,400. So the ~u percent of median
incomc ani,mbble group is praclically thc ,l\-cr,lgl' ]llTSOIl li\illg ill the Slate or FlOlida. It's not a low-income
pn1ject.
/\nd ):el -- and therc al\: only I () pcrCl'1l1 of Ihe residcnts will he in that XU percent affordable category.
That's \vhat wclre t,liking ,lbou1. /\ hundred perccnt of Illedi,lll incomc is S72JOO. And those are usual1y
homeowners. Those are :,'our \vorkli,n'cc housing ]le~lplc. And those people arc] 20 percent of the state's median
inCUll1l:. III othcr words. these ,11'12 not what pcopk arc picturing ,IS ,1n()rdab1c housing rcsidents.
They're not -- they're picturing a IILID project (lr ,11<1\ credil pn~iect. And by thc way, there is a problem
-- a vacancy problem and problems that thc COUllty'S having \vith vacancy and othcr areas in the low-income
housing projccts. And I understand that. AnJ tl1<ll's not what we're intending to build, again.
Vv'e ll<lvejust been saddled with this requirement thal we have to work with and make the best of. But itls
lHJt sOlllething 10 be all'aid oL <It Ie,lst in my cstinl<llion. '
Now. what \\T'rC ,lctually' trying to <in is we're trying to build something which is similar to a traditional
l1eighborlllH1d design COllllllUllity. Tradi1ional ncighborhood dcsig.-n which Matt Polak will understand (sic) I
Page 6 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 118 of 407
bclieve is a step up Irom the old run-ol~the-mill garden apartment buried in a sea of parking that you see most
places around the state, including Collier County.
Traditional neighborhood design is more expensive to develop. One of the reasons it's more expensive to
develop is because the building has no back and no front. tt in dYect has two highly decorated fronts. Many
buildings that you'd see that are backed up that are behind a sea of parking and backed up to their property line
may have an attractive Iront but have a just plain unattractive rear. You can't afford that with a traditional
neighborhood design community.
The visitors are going to enter Irom the Iront and the residents are going to enter from the rear. There's
going to be visitor parking in the front along the streets, and resident parking in the rear, so you have to have two
tronts to the building. tt's a much morc expensive type of project to develop.
And as a matter of I"ct, people who are concerned about the type of project that's going there, this is going
to cost more to build than a run-of-the-mill apartment project. And because of that, we have to try to make it
better and attnlctivc, a more -- a group of people who could afford to live there because the costs are going to be
higher, whether it bc a rental cost or a sales cost, in order to compensate for the lact that we have a more expensive
type of design.
Now, when surveyed, 60 percent of Amelicans stated that they wanted to live in walkable conmlUnities.
And that lreod is especially true among baby hoomer retirees who are going to be your next wave of people
coming in and who \ve1d hope to attract as residents to this community. That's why baby boomer retirees are
moving back to the cities and the ling communities around cities, because they want to he within walking distance
of most of the amenitics that they enjoy, whieh we intend to incorporate into the project.
The trend, as a matter of j"et, the deSign trend is to go back to what is popular in European cities and
many planned communities ill the United States; that is, dcemphasizing the use of automohiles and increasing the
walkability and use ofbieyetes. And this is one ofthe advantages of this type of design in this community.
Mixed income communities are generally thought to he more attractive, especially in an area with a high
snovvbird population. Because it\ the higher range of the income people are not there all year round. and the
community becomes morc of a community with people who are pemlaIH:nt residcnts who live there throughout the
year. And that's considered a desirable aspect.
III all palts ofthc county, you knm.v, including abroad. energy crliciency has become an issue. And this--
and the type ol"design, energy elticient design is usually a smaller, more eflicient design.
So looking at the project and commenting on sheer numbers is not tClking the whole thing into
consideration. Because, you klHlV/, the trclld is to smaller. morc energy efficient. more usable units.
III order to attract nc\v residents, especially ne\v retirees. a fi'esh approach has to he made and to
diiTercntiate this cOllllllunity Jhllll the other cOllllllunities around it. especially in this market. And we believe that a
traditional neighborhood design type of community, one that has been successfully done in Collier County, there's
an example or a project called Ule', and -- what', the other onc, beginning with an M'I Mereato. And a few other
projects that have been done which are a ne\v approach.
And this is morc CXpCllS1Ve to budd. /\11d as a matter of fact, those two communities arc high end
communities. And thc only places where traditional neighborhood design has been used has been in higher end
communities because it is more expcllsive. And of course \ve're going to have to economically justify that and do
a nice community. because werre doing a traditional neighborhood design comlllunity, which will cost more.
The cOllllllcrcial aspect is not a t)Vica1 commcrcial aspect or a CVS on a comer or a grocery store. We
envision this to be a live-\vork cOlllmunity. \Ve envision the comlllercial aspect to consist of architects' offices.
maybe tutors because there's a school next door. maybe a dentist, maybe an ice cream shop. But things that can
survive 01T or a walkable community and maybe ofT of the adjoining communities.
We don't sec this as something that would attract Illany people from the outside. We view this as an
amenity to the community. And we also think it's an amenity that will draw in people who want to live there,
because they'll be able to have their businesses there or thcir professional practices therc. et cetera.
And that's the -- and in ttlis day and age people are telecommuting, and telecommuting people who will be
able to live and go downstairs to get the dry cleaning or whatever, you know, this is one aspect of the community
that we belleve will make it more appealing to people and he able to command a higher price for the units.
Page 7 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda ttem No. SA
Uecember 14. 2010
Page 119 of 407
We have a mega shiH in the eCOlWI1lY, There arc many distressed projects. So we feel that this new
design and new approach to the projcct, and getting away from the old design will payoff economically.
And there's one othcr aspcct. And the aspect is the organic nature of the design and the development. In
order (0 support the retail, we need a certain amount of residential. In order to support the residential, we need a
cCl1ain amount of retail. This is a very small cxmllple of how urban development -- or new -- traditional
neighborhood design communities work. And this is pl'l1babty the smallest that you ean go. Usually these things
are new towns, Usually these things arc places that arc. you kllow. hundreds of acres. not 22.8 acres.
So in -- so we believe that the numbers ,met the balance between the units. Humber of units and the amount
of retail is impol1anl to -- and afTects one another. So we can't cut dO\\'Jl on either one of them, because there is a
critical mass that \VC h,-lve to reach.
Basically summarizing. I thillk \ve hm,'c -- the neighbors have unj()]tunately been misled by labels. The
label of aff(mbble housing I don't belie"e -- t don't betic"c that the lowest income le"el being the median --
average mcui~ll1 income for the Slate of Florid~l \vould qualify as what I \vould ordinarily think of as affordable
housing.
And I belien: that although the communit)' is different and it's not \vlIars been done many times before,
except in a couple of high cnd cases. it's going to bc a benefit to the neighhors. It's going to differentiate itself
frOln them. And it's going to probably! add value. not detract value 1h)]11 thc surrounding communities.
C1IAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
rvlR. TRI]~SH: (iood llIorning. ('hairlllan. Comlllission. For the record. Ted Treesh. TR Transportation.
Just quickl:', the transpOltatioll conditio[]s out there really' haven't changed since the last time we were
before you. In f~ICt. tranic. as you1re we1\ aware, bas dwpped over the last fe\\.' years in the county. So we're still
consistent with the Growth I'vlanagclllent Plan. \Ve1re still -- have conditions within the staff report that we1re in
agreement with.
The County Barn issue is hopefully resolv.:d 1l0W \l.,iith the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension. There was
-- ill the initial analy'sis \\ie provided back in 1()O~ showed sOllle potcntiallcvcl of service issues on County Barn,
but that was g.oing to bc rcsolved \vith the Santa Barbara extension to the south. \vhich is. I believe, now complete.
SO ,IS Ill'W tranle data becomes ;Iv,-lilahlc ill the next YL'ar, \VL' rully' ,11lticipatc that the level of service issues on
County Barn will be resolved and \vill he cOllsistent \\-'ith the Ciro\vth Malwgelllent Plan.
Thalls really alii h,-Id 10 otler this morning 011 the record.
CIIi\IRM/\N STRi\IJ\: tl1'lIlk Y(lll. Wc'IIIi;(Vl' qucstions. ('Ill sme.
~Ir. Prill. is your presctlt;ltioll done now'.)
MR. PRITT: Wc have M,nIPot<lk.
CIIi\IRMi\N STRi\tf\:: You'llnccd to wme up <Inti -- obv.
MR. POLAK: (100d llll\ming. ]\il)"Il<llllC IS l\bl1 Polak. Chisolm Architects.
I did wallt to wke some tillle tn gn over the master plan. site plan that Robel1 had put f()lward.
I wellt <lhcacl and rendered a plan. I recall ,It the last time that we met there \vas, I guess. some questions
as to the building. you kno\\'. wh~lt we're shO\\'IIli! on tile master plan heing huilding pads.
\'ou know. thcre had been the C(HICCITI ,-lhout. you kIWW, those buildings look m.vllll1y big. And we were
l1)'ing to cOllvey both to you and to the public tlwt. you knll\\'. that\ .iu~t identiry'ing where the buildings are going
to go ill relationship to the stlTets alld tn the p:1rkillg and to the preserve areas.
So what I'v(' gone ahCld ami dUIll" is rendered up a sill' pl;lll hased upon tlwt sallie graphic that v..'(]S -- that
Robcli had presented.
I apologi/e j~n' it being that dark. It doesn't (sic) look tlIat dark when we printed it. What welre trying: to
convey hc:rc, I think olle llrthe aspects ol'the dcsign that has son orllot been discussed maybe in as much detail as
when we slaJtcd the process is th,lt wc lwd a great dcal -- \vc spcn! a greal deal of time cngineering the preserve
arca ;lIld the on-site drainagc ror this site.
And as you go through that prucess. you begin to -- you \vcmllo begin to realize what are the opportunities
that YOLl have. what arc the things you don't wanl to touch. \vhat arc the things you want to stay away from.
So ill developing that. we tried to keep the preserve area, whieh borders along the cast and south sides of
the property. \\ie wanted to tly' to keep lhat <IS llCltural as possiblc. And I'm sure Tammy will come up and discuss
Page 8 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 120 of 407
those -- can discuss that in a tittle bit more detail.
Additionally, you know, how do you address your on-site drainage and how do you put it into some sort
of -- make a design statement and make it something that would be amenable and becomes part of the overall
development and ties -- helps you tie together the commercial component along with the residential component.
You begin to start looking at those aspects, you begin to say it starts to make more sense to start looking at
traditional ncighborhood design concepts. And what you're trying to create when you do this is you're trying to
create open space. You're trying to define it and trying to develop it.
And one of the things we began to look at there is where do those opportunities begin to exist and how do
you begin to do that.
So one of the key aspects was circulation. Ilow do you get into the site, bow do you get out of the site,
how do people view the site. And in put up --I gucss we can put up this graphic real quick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As you speak, if you just slow down just a little bit. She has to--
MR. POLAK: Oh, I'm SOil')'.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She has to type as Erst as you speak, and it's actually for everybody's benetit that
we have a good record.
MR. POLAK: I'll try to slow down.
This is an aerial graphic that shows the project site. You see Davis Boulevard to the north, you have
County Bam happening to the west.
As eVCI)'OIlC knows, O,wis Boulevard is a divided road, a divided roadway, as is County Barn. And the
Juture of County Balll as it's going to be is going to be subdivided.
So what we really have herc is we only have access from Davis Boulevard on eastbound traffic. And our
access (j'0I11 County Barn is predominantly fi'OIl1 -- is northbound traf1ie, although we have worked out an
agrecment with the church adjacent to us to allow us to have a Icft tUIll in and a lell tum out at that area.
So what we've gone ahead and done is, as you can see, which is a change from the previous design. is that
we\'c gone ahC,ld and created an entryway here, which is a right turn in ofT of DaVIS Boulevard. And then what
happens when you come otr of Davis Boulevard, wc're trying to create a space thcre where the street, you have a
buitding about, you know. between two and three storics high, crcates a wall, which is buffered with the street and
then has the lake. And at the tenninalioll ofthc lake we have our commercial component.
The commercial component is a mixed use component. We kind of envision that area to be as well as,
like what Mr. Cioldmeier said. h,-lving liv'e-work units there. It also could house a recreational space. We envision
that a park I"l' all the residents 10 use woutd be in that arca there. And also internal to the building you could have
a gym, a multipurpose rO{lm. spnces that could he used by the entire community f()f social gatherings.
The key element here is that we \vanted to create focal points as we go down. So as you come to this
point here. you have a j()eal point that Ulkes you into Jhe predominanlly residential component of the project,
vvbich is surrounded by smaller buildings that are broken lip on the pad. \Vhat we've done there is broken the
buildings up. Those arc -- those pods cun be anywhere fhull 12 -- anywhere 1]-O1ll six to 12 to 18 units between two
and thrce stories high.
And \vhat you're traveling down is a main street \\'ith parking on both sides. And the building's relatively
close to the streetseape. I have a graphic that I'll bring up next to discuss how we try to create that sort of
strectseape.
One of the elements we like about this is that we create -- in going with this type of building is that you
kind or crcate somc passive security with that. Vehicular circulation has to pass through buildings, you have eyes
on the street at all times. Ii's very difliculi to do something bad when you kind of have to drive through at a
relatively slow speed and have a lot oCpeople on you.
So there's a psychological coneem 1(11' pcople who want to do bad things, they typically don't like to go
into arcas that make it very dinicult to get out, or make it possible that they won't be ahle to get out unnoticed. It's
a very passive way of doing that und that avoids us from having to wall in the entire community or put a security
gate or handle those aspects or it. So that was one or the other items that we began to look at when we started
laying out the building.
What we discussed there -- actually, if you can actually kind of show this pm1 there.
Page 9 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda ItelTl No. fJA
December 14. 20'10
Page 121 of 407
Really, what we \Vcre trying to show here is how the streetscape and how we create space, open space
within the development. The top graphic you're seeing there is a prefclTed pedestrian section that kind of tells you
if a building is "XI! high, you want it to be "X" width. And thnt's a vel)' comfol1able way of creating space for
people to walk through. And what we've done is we've created that.
Those spaces hegin to occur between buildings here and here, as well as over here and over here. So at the
sallle time we're breaking up the building, we're creating pedestrian connectivity between buildings, between
parking areas, and we're ,Jlso creating vel)"' well defined spaces that me very pedestrian n very pedestrian friendly.
The second graphic is really a graphic -- is a graphic that really discusses the streetscape and how you
want to be in a ratio of the building height to the \vidth. Our widths of our streets from buildings are about 62 feet.
So what that equates to. our buildings are going to range in height any\\.'hcre from 28 to 35 feet, depending where
the roof line is ami if we have any special characters.
So ""hat \ve1ve tried to do there is keep it in a ratio of olle to two, again creating kind of an outdoor room
and conidor for people to kd vcry' eom[(H1"ble \v,dking down there. So that's where you see <111 the road\vays are
designed with that concept.
j\nd basically what \Vi: ell\'ision there is tlIat is you have a main building. The units that fi-cmt that would
have either slllall porticoes or jxm:hes, depending on the tina] design, smalL you know, 10 feet of a front yard
space. It wouldn't be their front ~/ard. but it would be a green space. It eou]d he either grass or it could be
landscaped.
And then a sidewalk. parallel parking l(x visitors. and then a mUTOW road anywhere between 20 and 24
leet in width. And the reason \\'l: like that width is that it keeps traffle at a Inv.,,' speed and allows bicycles to use the
same road without having to do a separate bicycle path. Traffic here will he relatively minimum, given this
density oCthc project.
And then the hottom graphic is really what would be an acceptahle open space for a parking area. And
we've tried to keep the parking nreas hehind the buildings S(l that n we go at a ratio of one to six, so that again
going to a. you know. ~I 25 or lO-foot radius. :'ou're looking at parking widths somewhere in the range of
anywhere lI'om 60 to 120, llwybe I ~() teet, no more than thaI.
So what we've tried to do is take every aspect of the design and create space. comfortable space where
people arc going to he comllH1able, \vhether thcil"l' parking their car. whether they're parking on the street.
whether they're \\'a]king to their neighhors or w;l]king to the cOllllllcrcial component.
Alld thell this last graphic is we wellt ahead ;llH.I we overlaid our n can )/ou pan it hack out a little bit more
so people can sort of get an idea. \Ve Wl~llt ahead and o\'erlaid our graphic to kind of n well. that's probably a little
too l~lr n to overby the graphic to slllnv Iww this is going In work ill thl' context of the adjoining neighborhood.
/\s you C;:1n see \ve're beginning n YOll know. \ve begin to define Davis Boulevard. Although we create a
buftCr between Davis Boulevard, :--'ou know, \ve crecHc ,I linc tl1<lt tr<lnlC going cast on Davis Bou]evard is going to
see an altnlclive development that's llllt Ilecessaril.y hidden hy <Ill:,thing.
\\.ic create (\ second;lry series or m;ldw<I:--:S that allow IlH' circulation, take a ]itt]e bit or the traf1ic oiT of
there reII' our l'l)IllIllUllity, ;It l:.:<1st. allows thelll It) gP either to ('Ollllty Iklnl or to Davis Bou]evard, gives them that
tlexibility there.
And thl'll we've gone ahead and created <.1 [(lcal point tn the east. which is our commercial component, a
Ill<ljur view ViS!;l, \vl1ich is utlr water ~~ our w;.ltcrll'ont bke, and [hell a smal1little focal point f(Jr the community
area there.
And then we envision around the perimeter of the entire sill' n this is m)' last slide, I promise -- you can
see around the site here \ve have <l -- killel of a w;dking path, we kind of envision as an exercise path. It would a
pervious path that \vou]d bring n the residents \vould havl' a c1mllce to atlcast \-valk, I don't want to say through the
preserve area, but would be able to walk adjacent to the preserve arca. Create a nice area around the property.
I said that \\'tlS my last slide, hut I misspoke. I actually have one more, which was a quick rendering that
\ve had done that I'd like to show.
This isjust a rendering where we try to give an idea. This could be basically a view at any of the circles,
although tile one you're -- this one you're looking '-It Jl()W is probably more indicative of what you would see at the
cOJlllllercial ~- at the lerlllination of the COlli mercia I where on the comers :you would have large kind of focal
Page 10 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 122 of 407
points. Ynu would potentially have retail on the bottom with some units on top.
And along that area thcre you could have either -- you cnuld have live-work units, which could be small
offIces on the ground floor with a walk-up, or you could have small little retail ot1lces that could occur there, or
you could have just straightforward apmiments there.
So the idea there is that, you know, in keeping with that you see the sidewalks on the street and it's sort of
canied -- and we would carry that -- whatever final architectural style we choose, whcther it would be
Meditenanean or Florida Vemacular or whatever, we would cany that through on all the building, so that the
buildings themselves would all look as if they were pmi of a larger plan.
And with that, I'll pass it ofTto Bob.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Pritt. We're going to take a break at 10:00 for 15 minutes. When we
get back from the brcak, we will start asking our questions, no matter where you are, so you have 13 minutes __
MR. PIUIT: As a matter nf lact, I think we may be tinished. We do have the engineer and the
environmental expeli Iiere to answer any questions that you may havc, or attempt to, anyhow. And I think that we
are finished with our prcsentation. And we'd be glad to answcr any questions, if you want to start now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to get a procedural issuc out of the way that involves the County
Attomey's Office.
Mr. Pritt, you said iu thc beginning you'd like thc ability to cross-exam?
MR. PRITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you intend that to apply to the members of the public?
MR. PRITT: My request would be. but yes.
C1IAIRMAN STRAIN: .Iet1~ there was some recent comi decisions on regards to public speakers and the
ability to be cross-examined in a quasi-judicial hearing. I don't recall the details ofthat. But is that something we
have to aIlov./?
MR. KLATZKOW: If somebody wants to eome up here and speak to you as in a factual naturc, he's got
the right to ask them about that. okay?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, people don't comc up here just 10 give opinions, I don't like this and sit
down, there needs to be some SOli of rationale that you can grasp 011 to, hecause you have 10 come up with
substantial competent evidence, all right?
I-Je's got the right to question them about those lilclual allegations.
Ct IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure the public was aware that -- should you pose
an issue or a concern to lLS, J'Vlr. Pritt would have the ability to ask you how you verify that or more questions about
it.
MR. PRITT: I will try to exercise restraint.
CHAIRMAN STRAfN: Thank you, sir, I would appreciate that.
MR. PRITT: I'm not sure I'll succeed, but I'll try.
But I will be glad to try to answcr any questions. But I wanted to make sure that Mr. Polak had the
opp0J1unity to show you what some ortile thoughts were, anyhow.
The last thing I would say on this is we're talking about concept. We're really here at the -- we're not at
the Site Development Plan phase. \Ve'rc here trying to answer some of the concerns that were raised in the
meeting last May, to try to show graphieatly or pictorially what this might look like. And so I just wanted to make
sure that everybody understands that, that the board understands it and that the people in the public nnderstand that
we're trying to sho\v conceptually \vhat this plan might look like.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Ukay. And Cherie', since we arc going to have a tot of questions, it will take a
lot or time, we could just as SOtlll -- rd rather take our break bef(xe we stm1 asking questions. So why don't we
break now and we'll come back at five afier t 0:00 and resume with questions from this panel. Thank you.
(^ recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ukay, if everybody will please take their seats, we'd like to resume the meeting.
Okay, we len otT and we had linishcd the presentation by the applicant with his various expelis. And
we're going to he going into questions iI'om the Planning Commission.
Page 11 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No SA
Decemhert 4, 2010
Page 123 of 407
Because of the volume of qucslions that we probahly :irc going to have, the,approach on this will he that
we'll take a section of the application and the distrihution by staff at a time I,)r questions Irom the various Planning
COlllmissioners and then move on like we did through the EAR and the GMP.
But first, the overall encompassing document that drove this project is the Growth Management Plan.
And it's about two pages of inl"nnation that is really the basis under which they had to move forward with thcir
design.
I'm sure that the Planning Commissioners have read it. It's in their packet. In fact, I'll try to turn to the
page. There's a consistency review memorandum. It's Page I or the second submitted packet. And that basically
has a lot of the GMP stuff in it.
I'd like to ask the Planning Commission to jirst ask any questions they Illay have of the Growth
]\;hmagemenl Plan isslIes. ,11ld then we'll move into the rest of the document.
Brad. do YOll hav'c ;:lIlY?
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: Arc we going to go through this or--
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. the consistency revicw page"
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: Right.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We C<1Il hit that a page at a time. or if you have any questions about that
document, that would he the beginning. hecause it 's the GMP.
COMMISStONFR SCltIFFI'R: Okay. yeah.
ct IAtRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions on that doeument they'd likc to ask at this
time?
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFLR: Well. I havc questions on the (iMP compliance. so yeah. I gucss I can
go lirst.
\.ou kno\\', the one tiling, Unb. I 'Ill not really' -- and I'm all architect ,11ld 1'1ll11ot really set as to how we're
going to guarantce that we get a traditional neighborhood or all the other kind of things. I mean, we've seen what
we've seen. This sketch is the olllv sketch.
So how we -- and it's going to go, I guess, ill the SDP process, which is a process that the public isn't even
privy to. Ilow are wc going to assure thal it (ldually becomes what would he considered a -- the intent to be the
traditiOlJalneighborllo(Klmixcd use dcsigll?
MR. PRITT: I'll take the SIJi1p ,md thell halld it otTa, lilst as I can to the experts. Since it's kind ofa legal
question, I think, it's Ill:)' understilnding that there is an SUP process, and that is something \vhere -- something we
still h<l\T to go through.
The -- I think the precisc qucstion was ho\v dn we k1H1\V that. And ir we means this Planning
COlllmission. the structure or your govcrnment is set up S{J that PhlllIling Commission has cCl1ain plnvcrs and those
po\vcrs go sn j~lr and they dl1llot go h) the SUP pn1l'l'SS.
\\-'hat wc Iwve tried to do, not\vithstanding that hecause ()r concerns that \vere expressed at the last
meeting, is to try 1\1 t!i\'c Y'Otl SOJlle idea and givc thc public ~{lllle idea as to what you might be seeing.
The -- I h<l\'C c\'cry reason 10 heliC\'c that during the SUP procc~s the administrative staff IS going to
contil1ue to he very carcrul ill its rcview. and will makc sure that what you approve, shnuld you approve it. and
what tile county cOlllmission approves. should they approvc it. i~ rolltw/clL hecausc they h~lvc to.
J'm not sure that that's ,m adequate answer. hut I think that that is something that goes into that process,
and {]wt'sjusl part oCthe l~lhric orulllllt.y g(l\'l'rllmcnl.
COMMISStONER SCIIIFF!'R: Okav. I Illeall, amt we've ,eell Sllme doeumcnts. I mean, alld the
document look good. The sile plan has all the asphalt colored green, \vhich I don't think will be the case.
The sections that hc sho\ved as here's our traditional town sectiolls, well, you know, the height of these
buildings can be 55 lCeL so -- the road righI-of-way sections me 5J feet and one 63 feet I mean. it doesn't even
match those sections.
I'm just. you kllll\V, wondering -- so there's nothing \vc're going to see past this to see if it really met the
intent of the opening paragr<lph of the CiMP?
MR. PRITT: Again, giving YOLllny opinioll, duting thc sitc deveioplnent process the statfwill go through
what has heen ultimately approved by the C~)lInty Commission, and we'll still have to meet all of those
Page 12 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda ttem No. SA
Decenlber14.2010
Page 124 of 407
requirements.
But this is not a call that you make at this level. This is -- the level of detail I don't think has been
assigned to the Planning Commission by the Board of County Commissioners. That -- once yon get into saying
what the buildings are going to look likc, all the details that an architect would be involved in, most of the details, I
think those are SOP --
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: And we can stop that. I'll go to stafI
The commercial component --
MR. PRITT: Maybe Matt could -- I don't know if you'd likc to hear from a fellow architect on that, but __
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, do you mind if! make one comment to his?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Bob, I understand what you said about the details nOllllally being in the SOP.
But that's when they're silent as to reference normally in the GMp. As you started out, the GMp is usually not as
detailed as we have in this patiicular case.
In this case, the GMp -- onc of the second sentences, the opening statement in the introductory parab'faph
says the intent ,iT the subdistrict is to providc tllf a development that incorporates traditional ncighborhood and
mixed use neighborhood design features, as well as recommendations of the Collier County Community Character
Plan.
So I think because it's in thc (iMP, it becomes an element open to this hoard to understand how you've
met that criteria. And 1 think that's where Brad may he going is, we haven't seen yet how that's coming into play,
except tor some of the conccpt sketchcs you've shown, and they seem to be inconsistent with some of the data in
the application. I think that's what we're trying to flesh out.
MR. PRITT: The -- it says the intent. We're talking about a description in the Compo Plan of what a TND
is likc. I think that we have prescnted that. But that docs not mean that you get into evcry detail right up to site
development plan review of this, anymore than you do anything else.
Now. maybe you do that in others. but I would suggest to vou that that's really not -- that's beyond the
jurisdiction ofthc body --this body in this type of all application.
Now, I kllow nobudy likes to ilear that, hut that's -- that has bl:CI1 assigned -- it's not that it hasn't been
assigned, but it's been assigneJ to stafr at SDP.
And, you kIlOW. the law coutd be ditTcrcnt, the code could be different in another city close by. I'm aware
that sometimes it is assigneu to the council, sometimes it's assigned to the planning commission. But here that
seems to be the \\'ay that it's set up.
\Ve're trying to give you as much information as possible. but we oonlt want to be locked in to what are
otherwise SDP matters.
That's the hest I call ans\\'cr. I k11l1\V ii's 110t a happy answer, but [ -_
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure it's all answer that 1 agree with, or maybe the rest of us. I didn't
bring m)' entitlement document f(Jr the Planning COlllmission ready here with 111e today to debate with you, so I'd
like to ask the County Attorney if -- I belIeve that this Planning Commission has a right to ask for and to review
any criteria we'd like.
Jetl: where are our limitations; do YOll recall'!
MR. KLATZKOW: As tar as site dcvelopment plan review goes, I think if the Board of County
Commissioners wanted to kick this back to you to make sure that the site development plan met the intent of thc
Compo Plan, everything else. I think that!s an appropriate mechanism.
Ami I think thai coutd be a recommendation by the Planning Commission, that the Board as condition of
approval, if' the board approves this. ask that the Planning Commission review the site development plan. And
tilaCs ho\v you would get it.
CllAIRMAN STRAlN: At this Icvel of rcview today, based on the language I read from the Growth
Management Plan, is it within our review to seek further clarification as to how they intend to meet the intent of
this subdistrict?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think they're there yet. I mean, usually at this level -- they don't usually have
this level or detail at the rezoning stage.
Page 13 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page .t 25 of 407
That's why I'm suggesting that iryou'rc concerned about it, I think the appropriate and the fair thing on the
applicant would he to, okay, I'll n you know, at that point in time if the Board wants, the Planning Commission
will review the site development plans. We've done n this Board has seen plans before on controversial projects
as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. thank you.
MR. PRITT: Could I ask the u
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. PRlTl: -- just a question back on that?
I'm not ;}\\,<lre of any -- have there heen matters where the Board has sent it back to the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thcre certainly has
MR. PI<lTT: -- Planning Commission for site development review?
CHAtRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mnrray.
['v1R. PRITT: I'm trying In think -- I don't know orany but--
MR. KLATZKOW: The Planning Commission has the authority to review any matter that the Board
wishes them to revic\v. "rhat's just pm1 of their inherent powers and the ()rdinance powers.
MR. PRITT: Did you want to ileal'. ii'om n
Ct IAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes. Ithink you need to tinish your response to Brad's question.
MR. POl.AK: What I just wanted to further discuss was that the graphic that Mr. Andrea had presented at
the be~il111illg or our presentation was the graphic that was submitted as part of the application. So in respect to
that, the streets and the streetscapes are shn\\'Il. ynu know -- you know. we developed a concept based on that
document tll~lt \Va~ presented.
To go to your discussinJl abnut the huilding heights <lnd that. you knm.v. we're looking at two and
three-story huildings. So. :YOL! know. rea!!::... the 55-root clemeJlt is really -- if al some point during the design
process there's '-I lower or sOllle sot1 oj' llxal point that would require. .\/ou know. an architectural dement that
would need to extend heyond. you kno\\'. \\'h~lt would hc considered. you know. on a three-story. you're looking at
all.\'\vhcre from. YOll know. 33 ltl 43 [eet prohably' Oil ,I three-story and probably 10 or 12 reet less than that on a
two-stOI;.'.
So. )/Oll kilO\\'. ii'S not our intent to try' tn build a. you know, 55-root -- you kIlO\\'. a three-l1oor, 55-foot
high building. It's not where \\'e're going \\'ith th~ll.
COMMISStUNER SCtltFFt':R: But wkillg tlla! data. your three-to-olle ratio t()r your vehicular
cross-secli(ll1. that would Ix: tJO, -to lCet. 12(J-!{)0[ wide cross-sections. and they're really naITO\\'.
[\1R. POLAK: \\,!e11. \\'I1,lt \\'e were -- ~/Oll kllO\v, wl1at I was trying to convey' there is that what we were
trying to do is maintain -- Oil those ratios is 10 rL'(lII~', YOll Knnw. three -- y'ou kno\v, we Ilgure bet\vecn one-to-one
and three-to-olle is really' where you \\',1Il1tu j~I11 ill creating thaI space.
So \vhen y'ou'rc lalking about a, you knnw. ,1 2) or -- you kno\\'. 25 or 2,s-high two-story building, let's
say', you kno\v. you are looking <It ~I two-to-one ratio. 'y'ou're ;11. you know. 50, 60 led. ^ three-tn-one you're a
little bit wider. \'ou kIlOW, we have <l ::;2-!()01 rjght~or-\\'~IY ,1Ild then we han:- the buildings are set back and then
the buildill!:!s rise up. So :--ou h,I\L' another I () ll'el ill! top orth~\t.
Sil you're h)nking ,It 52. plu'i [he huilding sL'[h<ld~'i Oil the propcl1y could be another 1 U feet Oil both sides.
So youlre at 52. h() -- you could he at 72 teet ultimately nn how you situatc those huildings along the streelscape.
C( lMM ISSl< lNER S( 'IItt'tTR: IlIle'lll. tlte nhihit. wltich I thillk is prepared by your olliee showing tlte
cross-sections. so these \voltld proh;.lhly he wider thall n
MR. POLAK: I don't kno\\' \vhich exhihit you're looking ,11, that IS why.
('( lMMtSSI( lNER S( '1ltlFt OR: hhihit (i. It shows three crnss-seetiolls ot'the street.
MR.I'OI./\K: 1'111 loo~illg--
Clli\fRM/\N STRAIN: Brm!. nile ot' tlte concerns tltat we should have is tltat these cross-sections.
because they're exhibits 10 zoning. arc a little morc blocked in than -- \ve probably need to find out what we're
really trying to tllk ahnut. versus ho\\' this is locked ill when starj'~ds it.
CUMMISSIONER SCl tlFFER: Then tet IllC n t tell vou what. tet me -- let's move the answer to that
when \VC actually n:vlc\\' tile I'UD document ,IS p,lrt orl\1al.
Page 14 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 20.tO
Page 126 of 407
MR. POLAK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question is you're not going to use green asphalt,
right? I mean, cven though your renderings -- if you put your site plan up there, it's a beautiful site plan, but all the
pavlJ1g is green.
MR. POLAK: Well, I think the paving is showing green. We actually -- it was a -- we went with a gray,
kind of an ofj~gray color. It didn't print. And then from the printing (0 the visualizer -- well, in the TV I can't tell
you. It's not going to be grecn, though. It's--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does look nice green, though.
MR. POLAK: Yeah, grecn always looks better than black, usually. But that was -- again, we went with a
gray, and it just -- I think between our computer, our printer, the visualizer and the monitors, we ended up having
it green.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: And my next question, and maybe the engineer could answer tbis, is the
commercial component, I don't have a drawing, or do we, that actually shows the perimeter of that?
The site plan shows mixed use, the PUD references mixed use, but it's just showing it in shaded buildings.
]s there a boundary for the commercial component?
MR. ANDREA: As statcd in the GMP, I believe it can be no larger than five acres for the mixed use
portion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is there -- so there's no boundary at this point, you'll determine that
during the SDP process also')
MR. ANDREA: Correct, right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the general criteria there's a requirement that the parking area is to be
intemal to thc site and screened from County Barn Road and Davis Road. The site plan appears to have achieved
exactly thc opposite of that: is that right? (Jr what is --
MR. ANDREA: Our feeling on it is that it is actually intemal to the site. I can't recall the exact, but the
architect and I were talking about there seemed to he issues a while back about the buildings being right on County
Barn Road. So we brought them internal to do his architectural features. And there's no otbcr spot to put the
parking, so we did screen it with the extra vegetation there.
COMMISSIONER SClIIFFER: Okay. ('m -- let me just double check rcal quick, but I think I'm done,
Mark, on the (iMP stutI.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Befllrc we move into the application ol'thc pUD document itselt~ are tllere any
general (iMP questions J)-um the rest of the Planning Commission'!
Melissa')
COMMISSIONER AIIERN: It looks like you're providing great access within the community. Are you
making -- do you have any plans to provide access to the neighbors to thc cast or south to -- where they would be
ahle to access lhe cOlllllH:rcial areas without having to go all the way around?
MR. ANDREA: That's all Sencrest Schoot propel1y to the cast alld to the south. Alld that's through our
preserve area. And I believe they have a fence there. I don't believe __
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So you couldn't providc access (0 Falling Waters?
MR. ANDREA: Falling Waters I believe is two properties over.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. It doesn't look like it Oil the map.
MR. ANDREA: Let me see if I can get a belier map.
Okay, this here, this is all Scacrest Schools, here and here. And I don't bclicve they'd be interested in us
having -- gi'v'ing them access.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, that's lillc. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. bet(,re we lcave the GMP issues -- Karcn"
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The commercial tract is mixed use and should include residential and
cOllll11ereial. Ho\v many units, residential units will be in that tract'?
MR. ANDREA: I don't betieve we have a linal determination on that. I know it will be at least 40, 50
units in that area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wow.
Page 15 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
P,genda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 127 of 407
MR. A NDREA: Is that -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: FOt1y or 50'!
MR. ANDREA: Right. We're planning to put the affordable housing --
COMMISSIONER IIOMIAK: -- ofcommerciat--
MR. ANDREA: -- units there above the commercial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, wc're still on the couple of pages of the GMP first.
Anyhody else have any questions oflhe GMP"
(No rCSI)Onsc.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm going to stm1 of1'wherc Brad had gone hut kind of didn't finish it.
The parking area, under the gcncrat eritetia it said. parking areas shall he intemal to the site and be
screened Ii'om COUllt)' Barn Road and Davis Boulevard.
David \\/eeks, are you here? '{es. David. would you mind coming up?
Or Corby, I guess you're -- but David -- I f;UCSS David, whoever is most tamiliar.
This is (1 general issue. \\iould there been ,~l~Y sense if we had said in the fi.Jllowing, parking areas shall be
external to the sik? Can a parking area he cxtcmal to the site?
MR. WEEKS: No. That -- t,'r the record. David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section.
To me 10 say external to the sile means nIT-sill'.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when we reler to this general criteria as heing intemal to the site, what
was your dcpartmcnt\ pusitiol1 un tllar' Vv'nuld you expcct that. meaning it's not exposcd directly to the visual
roadways tl1<1t adjoin the sitc, meanin~ the huildings go fonvard and the parking goes behind them, or what did
you expect by that kind ora statement in the (;!\1P'.'
MR. WEEKS: Gcnerally I w<1uld agree with your latter stalement, that the building would be along the
frollt.::1gC and the pmking \vould he behind the huildll1g so that itls completely blocked from view.
lIowever. I must aekllow1ed!:!l' that there's ;:mother scenario thai could still. I think, he considered inten1a1
to till; sitc. and that would be ir YOll had a sig:niticallt landscape hutTer. whether it's natural or man made. but a
signiJie<lnt landscape hllflCr alollg the li'ontage and thcnllad YOllr parking and then have your buildings.
Argu;:lbly t]1<1t \vould hc internal In the sill' ,IS well. heeallsc that parking is slillnot adjacent or abutting
that rOadW,l}'. t'OU havc a sl'gmcnt orland in hctwl'cnlhe roadv,:ay <llld the parking.
\Vlwt would he llllkno\vn IS ,\1 \Vhal point \tlll S;:I)' th;lt hurter is nC all adequate width, you can now say
that the parking is internal. Il'the lllinimulll code requin.'lllcnt is a jO-j(lOt huCfer and that is what's provided and
you have parking, I would say Ill), tll,lt is not internaltlllhl' site.
Ag,lin, I don't know what th,ll llumher \Vllllld be, hut II' -- ;;0 Il:ct, 75 JeeL you have some major buffer
area. then you have :your parking. 1 think re'-lson,lhl~" one could S;lY tll<lt is internal to the sitc.just because you have
a separalion i'rolllthe lllinilllUln buffer area ,HId then the n1;:ldw,I:V' 10 \vhere the parking arca actually begins.
CI tAIRIvL\N STR.\I": Okity. I klH'" vou pwhabty twvc not memorized the Collier County
COllll11Ullit}/ ('haracter Pbll dune h:y I )over-l(ol1l.
MR. WLLKS: TIt'tl', trUl'.
ct L\IIZIvIi\CJ STRAIN: I read il to see -- slIlee they arc supposed to be -- or they are suggested to look at
recolllmendations rnl/ll thai in their design. That plall docs address this issue. And one or the statements from the
plan sa)"s acres of surf,lce parkillg between slorc!i'llllts and the street arc responsible for thc negative visual impact
oCtypic,-d cOllllllcrci,d slrip. They donlt reCUlll1Jll'lld it. Resist parking ]ots in Il'onl of'buildings. 'let we see that in
three di rrcrent occasiolls.
Now. I dOll It klHl\\ why this wuuld L'onlC thmugh \vhcll the statement seems so straightforward under the
general criteri;:ltlwt it shou]dnlt he like lhal. But I \valltcd 10 gel staIrs pl1sition on it hccnuse in your write-up you
dcl'crrcd tltat to all issue to be Italldlcd by tlte SDP.
Since this Board has 10 appmve a master plan that is attached to the PUD, that \vould rcquire a master plan
change ir those buildings had to he movcd to he more cOllsistent with thc interpretation of the Community
Character Plan. And that means they'd he b;:lCk in herc again and doing this all over.
So I \vould think vVC need to get the master plan right. IIIll concerned that the intent oflhe general criteria
by putting the parking ;:\reas intern,d to the sill' has not heen mel in at \casl three different locations on this plan.
Page 16 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 128 of 407
And that's kind of why I wanted your thoughts, and I appreciate that.
MR. WEEKS: I'd like to see if Corby has any additional input, as the staff reviewer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby?
MR. PIUTT: Could I cross-examine first?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. David?
You're going to have to get to the other mic, Mr. Pritt.
MR. PRJTT: We've been arguing about statutory interpretation since, well, at least tbe days of our
constitution. That's why we have the 1 t th Amendment, because the Supreme Court disagreed with the framers
over the word between.
So I want to talk about the word intemal and external. In tact, there is no difference between the tenn
external and off-site, is there? I'm talking about in the dictionary. Is there any difference?
MR. WEEKS: I couldn't say without tooking up tlie detinition.
MR. PIU1T: Of course not. Why don't you just say of course not, there's no difference.
t-Jow. intemal is the opposite of external, is it not?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MR. PRITl': And to the site does not say to the buildings, does it, it says to the site.
MR. WEEKS: That is COlTCet.
MR. PRITT: So if you were to took at nothing but the -- do nothing but statutory interpretation -- are you
a lawyer, hy the way?
MR. WEEKS: I am not.
MR. PRITT: Okay, thank you. But I understand that part of what you do is you look at the laws and try
to interpret them.
But just looking at dictionaty interpretations, the site is what, the site is the 22.83 acres, is it not?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MR. PRITT: All of the roads and the parking arc internal to that site. arc they not?
MR. WEEKS: They're on the site. By default they'd have to be.
MR. PRITT: Internal to tlie site as opposed to extemal, right"
MR. WEEKS: In tliat sense, yes.
MR. PRITT: And there's not a whit of parking or a whit of acccss whatsoever Irom County Barn Road or
Davis Boulevard except for those two entrances; isn1t that correct?
MR. WEEKS: Woutd you repeat that? I'm son).
MR. PRITT: There's not -- I'm sorry. a whit. It's an old-J'lShioned word. There's not a scintilla, any
difference whatsoever -- there's no parking from County Ham Road: you canlt pull up to any of these sites,
whcther they're -- wliether commercial or residential and park your car on County Barn Road or Davis Boulevard
and get access to any or the buildings, call you?
MR. WEFKS: That's coneet.
MR. PRITT: So ill that sellse they are internal, the parking and the roadways arc internal to the site, are
they not?
MR. WEEKS: Sure, they have to be.
MR. PRITT: Now, pOl1 of the reason f"r that I believe camc up in one of the hearings. And I may stand
corrected, but olle of the conccms was, as I recalL at least at some point, whether it was stafT or here in front of the
Commission is there was 3 COllcenl about having something I1ke a comer drug store, a phallnacy, some type of a
building, convcnience store where people could just pull up to the convenience store or to the store off of Davis or
Coullty Bam, and from an cxtemal -- to the site area, and then you'd wind up with this business being operated on
the corner, which is what business is like. Is that fair to Si.IY?
MR. WEEKS: I think that was certainly pm1 of the concem, yes.
MR. PRITT: And so what we have done is made the access to the cOlllmercial area ofT of Davis
Boulevard. You have -- in order to get there, YOLl have to drive--
CIIAJRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt') Alld Mr. Klalzkow, I don't want this to be an opportunity to open up a
whole Hother presentation on the aspects and pros and cons of this project. Mr. Pritt wanted to cross-examine. I'd
Page 17 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 129 of 407
like you to be 'very specific and get 011 \vith the business. Otherwise every time one of these people come up and
make a sentence to us wc1rc going to be here for several days to get this accomplished. And tIus isn't the forum for
that kind of procedure.
MR. PRITT: Thank you. And with due respect, t think that because of what has been raised -- let the
record show that people in the 8udience arc clapping and that's improper.
I have a record to make and to maintain and to protect. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, and we're talking
about the question as to whether or not ifs internal and whether or not that -- whether or not we have made the
roadways internal to the site.
My last question to him is, ~IS YOLl Ill.:ad east on Davis B()llicvaru, you have to go all the way past the
commercial site, past the lake <lnd come ill and then comc down around a roundabout and -- to get to the
cOlllmercial area. And that's a way of making sure that )'ou don't have that problem; isn't that correct?
MR. WFt'KS: That is olle way. yes.
MR.I'RtTT: Thallk you.
MR. WEEKS: Mf. Chairman. I'd tike to make an additionat comll)ent--
CI IAtRMAN STRAIN: (io ahead. David.
MR. WEEKS: -- which Mf. I'r'itlmay wish to cross-examine me on.
I \vould suhmit that if vv'C "ie\\' internal as simply mcaning on-site, then there is no meaning to have the
word intemal in the suhdistrict. It has tn -- I \vnuld suggest to you that it has to have some meaning other than
simplyon-site.
O!' course, no\V by county regulalions in the LDC. parking has In be located (m-site. Now, there is some
provision for a cCliain percentage of that parking through a process to be located off-site. But parking, at least most
of it, has to be located Oil-site.
To say that internal cljU;:lls on-site in my opinion is mcaningless. There has to be some meaning, and there
\vas some me,-1I1111g Illr using the word inlemill in the subdistrict langua)!.e.
MR, KI.AT/KOW: Mr. Ch'llnnan'!
CI tAIRMAN STR!\tN: Yes. sir.
f\.HC KLAT/K()\\': The olle thing I \vallt is cyeryhody be treated in the same manner, so this
devc]()pmcnt gcts treated as evel")' ()tIH.T dc\'clopnlellt.
And Mr. \Vceks, you\ie heen with the cOllnty Ilu' a number of~.lears here working in the Comprehensive
Plalllling Department. Ih) you have allY (lther districts or areas within the county that utilizes similar language in
the C'OlllP. Plan to this?
MR. Vv'EJ]\.S: NOlle that COllle to mind. Jell. I would ilc1ually have to -- to give a !11ll1 factual answer, I'd
have lo look it up.
MR. KL!\I/K( )Vv: S" this isn't tire "nlv "ne'!
[vllZ. \VEl~KS: Possibly not. I can't say j(lr cC11ain.
CI t!\IRM/\N STRi\tN: t lkay. !\t1y "ther questi"ns or D,,,id while Ire's up here'!
(No response.)
CI ti\IRMi\N STR!\IN: Tlrank v"u. Dam!.
Ok;i}'. Iii, ('orh:,'. I don'llhink IllY ne\t question was of you. but did )/ou want to contribute something?
MR. SCt IMII)T: Ccr1ainly did. 'elf. Clrairm"n.
Fur the record, <- 'orhy Schmidt \vith till' ('umprchensiH' Planning Department.
CCl1ainly the lIse or the terIll <llld how stall approached our interpretation of it from the subdistIict
provisiolls \\ras 1I0t '-IS simple as clHlsidcring whether it \vas on the property. It bas as much to do with the
orientatioll of tile buildings and the association Of relationship witb parking areas as it docs \vitll the fact that it's on
the pn)perly.
'lv' c also ill nul' staff report made menl iOll of areas that were not intemal in our consideration, and we
would look !lx\vard to seeing those changes. And that's mentioned under your general criteria number two. I think
that's right \\'hcrc YOLl arc in your staff reports no\\', \vhere we had expected to see those changes at the stage of site
development plan.
And there are two or three locations here, cel1aillly along the fhmtagc of County Ham Road and a portion
Page 18 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 130 of 407
of the parking along the north edge on Davis that could bc considered intemal to the site, in statT's view, if it had
additional landscaping, buffering or other physical aspects that would separate it and make it internal to the site
and not adjacent to a frontage or roadway.
So not as simple as being on property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Corby.
Since --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is on topic, so let me just do a quick.
Ray, will this commercial area have to meet the architectural standards?
MR. BELLOWS: III my opinion they would, they're mixed use commercial.
COMMISSIONER SClIIFFER: And in the architectural standards there are requirements to not allow
parking or a percentage of parking visible on the street and stuff, so they'll get caught someplace else too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, you just brought up the problem. Because this master plan should
never have gotten this I'lr without this issue bcing corrected before it went on record as part ofthe PUD.
And 1 understand where many times you all have rel'erred to the SDI' as the solution. In some cases it
may be. But when this Board has to review smnething for zoning consistency and a map is part of the PUD, and
we even have a provision for going through map changes. I don't know how \\ie could have got something this far
inconsistent \vith the GMP and deferring it to an SOP process, if in fact the internalization should have been
accomplished. either by a targer buffer, which is not cullcd out here. there's a to -- a 20-foot wide buffer, or if that
isn't sufJicicnt, why hasn't someone said what is. And if in lieu of that, the buildings shoutd have been tUllled
around.
I think either one could be aceomptished rather easily. I'm surprised at the resistance I'm seeing to it. But
I wish this -- as I said, I don't know why this wasn't accolllplished before today. It's a mistake having it come into
this public hC3ring ill this manner tod,lY.
MR. SClIM 11)'1': Understood, Mr. Chairman. And let me address that fix a moment, if! may.
You had earlier mentioned the Community Char<lctcr Plan. And in those visioning sessionsl the county
saw that in comparison those seas of blacktop or those large parking areas were visually unappealing and in very
low ratings. And so to screen them visually was expected today to be eXplained to you, and it was alluded to that
along County Ham Road there would be additional screening.
To the extent you Illay not he clear enough yet, or to the extent what additional screening or landscaping
or buffering 111<IY he proposed along Dnvis, you have yet to hear fhJIll them perhaps to the extent you wish.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if stalf was approached with this plan as it's shown here today to
meet the requirements that you're now sa)'ing should be addressed, \vhether it be a better butTer or a relocation of
the parking behind the buildings. would y,'u have accepted this plan? Would this have been approved'!
MR. SCHMIDT: The SDP stage has lengthy review on landscape considerations and bunering, and the
statl's invotvement attha! tevct is atso considcrabtc. So I tlllnk that m dclerring it to the stalT level review could be
appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you -- if you got this plan, knowing the discussion we just had on
internalization of this parking and on it it showed a 20-t(lot Type I) buller and it showed those buildings and
commercial located like they arc with the parking ill illm! 011 the fhmtage of the road, would you have -- is this
acceptable') Would you have approved this plan"
MR. SCIIMlDT: No! as proposed. I would have asked I(lr clarification and additional screening to get
that 1~1r.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welt, that's the position we're in here today.
Let me read the Community Character Plan. a couple of elements. I'd like to know if staff is using the
Community Character Plan to review as guidelines against documents COIning in to them.
One item 1 I(Jund on -- I don't even know how to deline the pages. It looks like it's 2.55, strategies for
designing great streets. A ratio of olle-io-three f{lr building height to street width is otten cited as a benchmark of
success.
Page 19 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
A[Jenda Item No 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 131 of 407
I'm not SUfe how mandatory tlwt is, hut do Y(JU look at that as a guideline? And if so, did anybody look at
that in relationship to this project?
MR. SCIIMIDT: That specitic cite I do not use as a guideline. I use a number of guidelines, including
that one. A range of anything ti'olll a height relationship, building tacade to building tacade across streets,
one-la-one to one-la-three is acceptable.
This is supposed to be a traditional development and pedestrian scaled, and you've heard a lot of tenns
over the years about \vha1 traditional developmCllll11CanS and how mllch the Community Character Plan goes into
it or how much we draw ii'(l111 it. But certainly those pedestrian-scaled buildings i)r street widths, relationship to
the building heights, the ptxlestrian scale mealls shorter and not taller.
So in this case, if we were asked to interpret the taller buitdings, the three-to-one ratio would be less
illvorable than about a one-tn-one ratio.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I lkay. The rest. t guess, arc morc itcms we'll get into when we get into the PUD.
! think that's illY tast question t1'()Jll the GMP. Docs anybody else have any fdlow-up questions from the
GMP'J
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: No. just want to point out, though, Corby, what'you're saying is that we
could screen ii.om the street the parking. coned'? And then thus we won't have that sea of parking. Is that what
you1re saying is the solution here?
MR. SCHMIIJT: Statf suggests that that could be acceptable. And that's a decision that you ean
recolllmend on ,lilt! the county Board may have yet to make. But we suggest that could be acceptable.
COMMISSIONER SClIIFFLR: Woukln't that hurl the exposure of the commercial uses to the slreet? I
meall. pC(lple \Va11t signs, people \vtlnl visibility. they cCltainly don't \\'anl 10 be screened from the major streets
\\'ith the cOllllllercial compollent.
MR. SCIIMIDT: Wet!. this would nol be the only devetopment with commercial uses in the county that
is screened O[ set hack where you rc,lily don't have the vision or visual contact with the commercial uses. So it
should llot he a detriment In this locatioll either.
I 'OMMISSIONLR SCIIIl'FER: All right. thanks
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (lkav. tl",nk vou.
[\/15. Caron'?
COMMISStONIJ{ CAR( IN: Yeah. t .iust want to clarily this business with the master plan.
So \Vklt you're lclIill!; us is tll.ll \vhcll you gel to the SDP level you enn change this master plan to increase
demands ()]) any development?
MR. SCtlMIDT: ('mllot sure wl"'l vou Illeall. increase.
COMMISSIONLR CAR01'\: Wet!. y(lU.lust s"id y(ln c(luld require" grealer but'lerwidth.
MR. SCtlMttH: It's n(ll tll"t t would he l(l(lking l(l inert"se il at tile SUP slage. I'm looking t(lr the
applicant to propose the increases beJore Y'{lll today so I call rcvil'\v those when they come to us with the site
development pl,lIl.
CUM MISSIONER CARU1'\: Okay. Illal w"s realt, n(lt made cte"r. C(lrby. at all. It was sounding like
you were going tu he making wholcs,lie changes at lhl' SUP level or {J maskr plan.
~'1R. SCIIMIDT: I'm sorry ir it came acmss that way'. hut st~llTwas vcry' careful ahout which items \\'cre
minimal enough to include in the site llLvcloplllcnl plan rc\'icw later. And ohviously this is one of them that eame
too clllsc to the board.
Ct t;\tR'vlAN STR/IlN: (l"'i. Ilmd"
CUM MISSIONER SClttFI:LR: Mark. "nd we never Il"d" st"tTlhing, S(l Corby, this is one question that
IS yours. There's this criteria that the 11-Onli\f!C or the comnlCrcial cnlllponent shall be lIO greater than twice its
depth.
How do you [Igure that our?
Because if" you look at the ('oullty Barn, itls pretty wide, prohably more than twice its depth. If you look
on Davis, the depth is really great. lmean. how do YOll ligure that -- how did you come -- analyze that? 11m not
sure ho\\' I would.
I'VIR. SCHMIDT: There \\'en: ,1 lC\\' requirements ill the subdistrict lallgU<lge, including that it front on
Page 20 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 132 of 407
County Balll and that the dimensions or relationship between the dimensions amount to no more than five acres in
size. So it's a simple matter of -- what the developer decided to do is take the entire length of the frontage on one
roadway and increase the depth until it rose up to fivc acres. '
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you did is you took the width of the building on County
Barn, but it's widcr than twice its depth. And I'm giving -- it's an L-shape building so I'm giving the benefit of the
depth to be -- you know, if there was a bounding box around that thing, it still looks wider. So that's how you did
it, Of -- on County Barn?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is how they did it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if you drew a box around the perimeter of those things -- and
you checked it? Because it doesn't look like it to me.
MR. SCHMIDT: That can be double checked. But in the previous versions of the master plan or the
conceptual plans we've seen of this, those dimensions or that boundary between the two components were sbown.
It just simply isn't here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think the intent ofthis was to not have it be the whole length
o[the p,.tiiJcrty or to be narrow in its length.
But anyway, we'll move on. Check it because it doesn't look like it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Corby.
MR. PRITT: Cross-examination'!
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. PRITT: Just a couple of quest ions. The Dover-Kohl study, when was that done'!
MR. SCIIMIDT: I'm unsure of the exact date.
MR. PRITT: In the gilded age or after the meltdown'!
MR. SCHMIDT: Bell)re the meltdown--
MR. PRITT: Bef()re 2008: is that correct"
MR. SCIIMIDT: Yes. it was.
MR. PRITT: And has that been reviewed or updated since then'!
MR. SCHMI!)T: It has not been.
MR. PRITT: Is it your bcliefthat the Dover-Kohl study is paJ1 of the Compo Plan, the GMP? Or is it a--
I'm sorry. that's the iirst question.
You shook your head no, I think.
MR. SCIIMIDT: You were going on to and.
MR. PRITT: I'm sorry.
MR. SCt IMlDT: No, statf docs not cousider it to bc part of the Comprehensive Plan. There are elements
or the Dover-Kohl study \vhich were brought into the language of the subdistrict. So there arc clements involved,
but 110t the entire plan.
MR. PRITT: Was that bell)rc this subdistrict was created, thc Dover-Koht study, was that done bell)re the
MR. SCIIMIDT: Yes.
MR. PRITT: -- this subdistrict"
And is the Dover-Kohl study an ordinance? Was that adopted by ordinance" Or how was that adopted;
do you know?
MR. SCHM IDT: That is not my understanding.
MR. PRITT: But yet you're using 1hat as a determination as to whether something is consistent with your
Compo Plan, your (iMP?
MR. SCHM lUT: Not at all. In ['let, the stan's use of the document has been a useful guide that's a
compilation of a number of aspects of traditiol1;:i1 neighborhood dcvelopment that are deterred to and reterred to III
the subdistrict language.
Some of' the aspects that you\lc shown us, such as including that pedestrian scale, those public spaces,
having an architectural theme throughout and, not necessarily in this case a grid, a street system but that
intereonnectedness of strects are all components of that Dover-Koht study. And as well as the visioning and the
Page 21 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
."'genda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 133 of 407
visual aspects of that study in the background are p"'1s that the staff has drawn from.
MR. PRITT: And thai is why you review those as pm1 of the SOP process, is it not?
MR. SCHMIDT: "Those" means'! Those elements of the Dover-Kohl?
MR. PRITT: Yes.
MR. SCHMIDT: No. not necessmily. They would have been drawn into the project before then.
MR. PRITT: If there were an inconsistency between the Dover-Kohl study and the GMP subdistrict
language oCthis pm1icu!ar subdivision or this particular project. do you know \vhich would control?
MR. SCHMIDT: In the subdistrict language governing this pn~ject?
MR. PRITT: Yes.
MR. SCHMIDT: That's the answcr--
MR. PRITT: \Vith the subdistrict language governing this project being more specific ,md being later
than the Dover-Kohl study, that woutd control. would it not'l
MR. SCHMtlJ I: It ecrtainty would.
MR. PRITT: Then one other question. I think you said that you thought that this is something that should
be considcred at this level.
Did you ever send a memo indicating that these issues are issues that can he dctcnllincd at the SOP level?
MR, SCHMIDT: Yes. 1'",1 o('our statrrep0I1.
MR. PRITT: Do you see an inconsistency \\lith what you said a minute ago versus what you said in the
staiTp~l)(lr!'.)
l\lR. SCIIMIDT: None whatsoever. Again. I'm asking the Planning Commissioners to make a decision
Oil ho\v to interpret aspects ortlle Dover-Kohl study. irthcy're going to dn so, and/or the language in the subdistrict
itsclfas it's applied to the PUJ). And allcr thc:' choose to do that I'm able to use that at 8DP.
MR.pRtTT: Thank you. No Illrther questions.
CltAIRrvlAN STRAIN: Corhy. is there other examples or other instanccs in the Growth Management
Planlhat utilize cxternal documents'?
MR. SCllrvltDT: A nUlnbcr o('them.
Ct IAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think during thc EAR process I had actually counted. I think I said
there was 34 or 3h to the best or my recollection at the timc.
II' those cxtcrn,,1 documents providc information that is rLll1hcr dc1ined as verbatim -- or not even
verbatim, hmught inltl a subdistrict to he spelled nut ,15 criteria. does that criteria can)' weight because it's more
spclled out in the (il\1 P as it \\',lS pulled nut of -- llr lIl<l:' have pulled out of another document?
rvlR. SCII:-vllDT: It carries more weight ill that subdistrict language in the GMP, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAtN: Ihank you.
l'vIR. PR_ITT: II' I e~luld further cross. since you raised the issue. gOing to that question.
So what ynu do is YOll refer tll cxtcm,d doculllents that arc not pat1 of the (iMP in order to determine the
standard to he applied ror tile (iMP? To dctcrlnilll' whelhl'r or not something has been --
l'IIAIRI\.,t/\N STR:\IN: ()bJl'L'tiOIl, )-nu're ciwn1clerinng lilY question. I"hars not ,vilat I asked,
MR. SCt IMIIlT: Which is "hy t hilw the eontllsed look t'n my 1:lee.
0.'lR. PRITT: Ok:l)'. \\/ell. lclllle ,Isk my llWIl qucstiolllllY o\\'n \vay.
])n you LIse extcrnal doculllcnts that ,lre not pm1 orllle (iIVIP, tl1<1t arc 110t part oi'thc Land Development
Code in dctl'r111ining -- in llwkillg deterlllil1<ltiollS whcthcr or nnt till: standards I'(x this project comply with the
GMP"
No contusion, you know your ;:l1ls\\ocr\ :o/cs. Just say it. :--/cs. :you do, y{lU use Dover-Kohl, you use other
things. And I just want to nl<lke sure that that's what y~lu'rc SHying you'rl' doing.
MR. SCHMIDT: The staff does, hut nol necessarily in that order, ranking or priority.
MR. PRITT: Thank you.
COMMtSSIONFR SCtlll,!'ER: Mark n
CllAIRrvlAN STRAIN: Mr. Schitkr')
COrvlMtSSIONLR SCIIlFFER: And maybe I n in buitding codes wc constantly reference other
standards. So did 110t this introductory sentence reference the recommendations of the Community Character
Page 22 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 134 of 407
Plan? I mean, the reason you're looking at it in this project is because it's a way to help define what a traditional
neighborhood, mixed use developmcnt, as well as the Cotlier County Community Character Plan, which is the,
quote, Dover-Kohl.
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER SCHlFFER: So it is by refercnce part of this subdistrict.
MR. PRITT: I'm sony, what is, the Dover-Kohl study?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. The Collier County Community Character Plan that's referenced in
the subdistrict is the, quote, Dover-Kohl plan; correct? I mean, it's the title ofthe one I have.
MR. SCHMIDT: You have elements of the Dover-Kohl plan in the GMP or in the FLUE. You have
elements of the Dover-Kohl plan in this subdistrict language. And we've referred to elements of the Dover-Kohl
plan in the stalT rep0l1.
MR. KLATZKOW: Corby, the GMP says that for this district you incorporate recommendations to
Collier County Community Character Plan. And when you rcviewed this, are you looking at the Collier County
Community Character plan or not?
MR. SCl-JMlDT:.Whe,i\ve reviewed this plan--
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, when you read this application.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on. Are there any other questions from the GMP before we go
into the rest of the application?
(No responsc.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we have a statT report. And we're still asking the applicants -- I guess
the applicant's presentation people questions 1;'ClIn the stafT report. It starts on Page J. Let's just take it up to thc
PUD first.
Do we have any questions fhml the Planning Commission 011 Pages 1 through 87 Which is the body of
the initial stafTrcp0l1. And these afC questions of the applicant at this time bcf()re we get 11110 the staff report, the
stafrs own report.
We'll move to the PUD. It's 18 pages. Why don't we start right olTwith a couple of pages at a timc.
Anybody have any questions on Pages 1, 2 or 3 of the aetuat PUD?
(No response.)
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: And you are the -- Mr. Andrea, right?
MR. ANDREA: Yes, Andrea, corrcct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
On Page I of your Exhibit A, the PUll, itcm j(,ur, you added fi'OIn the last time you presented to us the
\vords maintenance shops and equipment storage under permitted uses \vithin the residential tract. What is your
intcntio11?
Because I didn1t see whcre those were possibly iocated on th1S site plan in front of us.
MR. ANDREA: Actually they were put in thcrc as aecessOlY uses.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. ANDREA: Basically if -- any of the ",'eilS may be within the commercial or within the residential
buildings needed to be designated as such, like an on-site management or on-site caretaker type shop, things like
that.
C1IAIRMAN STRAIN: Like a repair shnp or minor maintenance --
MR. ANDREA: Minor maintcnance--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- door handles and odds and ends?
MR. ANDREA: Correct.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 2 and 3 we move into the permitted uses of the commercial
tract.
Does anybody have any questions 011 those?
(No response.)
Page 23 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 135 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I have a whole bunch of write-ups.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: WelL I just have a general overall question. Mr. Goldmeier indicated the
kind of commercial hc intends for this project to be almost acccssory to his residential, almost as amenities for his
residential. I'm not sure that this list -- I mean, I think it goes far beyond what he threw out thcre as his vision.
And if suddenly we're going to have something totally difTerent from the vision that's been presented, I
think maybe we better go through all or these, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. that's w1,"t I'm asking. And I guess if there's objections, these uses
arcn1t a given. they're items that could be allowed. And we need to -- iflhere's some objectionable items in there,
the list can certainly be amended. And that's what we're here to do. so -- do you have any specifics you --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No. go al1cad. go through your tist. I'm--
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all. the list is not supposed to bc --the hst is not supposed to be in excess
of that what was in erfcct in our LDC as or -- and I think .Innc 27th. 2(J05 is the date -- or there was a correction to
that date. I believe. but ii's close enough.
:VIR. ANDREA: I believc it was Ordil",nce 04-41.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. 04-41 is the base ordinance.justlikc 9t-t02 is.
MR. ANDREA Correct.
CHAIRMAN STR,\IN: The prohlem is 114-4 I 's been amended six to eight times, and even more after
that. That's just in the initiall1rst couple of years. So you c<ln'{ look just at the base document, you have to look at
the amendments up 10 that date.
And I did that -- or actually starf did thaI. and they sent the document that they used, which is a chart we
put into dlCet a couple years aticr 1J4-41 was adopted.
'r'es. sir?
MR. (;OLDMFlLR: ()ur intenl was 1<1 basicatly lake the tlst of permilled uses or the county that the
county gave us and eliminate till' olles that were objectionable and make it possible for whatever other uses that
were not objectionable to he permitted. Not as a goal as to that's what we were seeking, but what -- you know,
\vhat's permil1ed. \V'e just leli it as hroad as we could.
My vision that I described earlier is based on the tilCt that this is not an ideal retail site, this does not have
any direct access to the rct;:1i1 compollen1. \Ve have a shared access with the church on one hand and then an
entrance li'Olll Davis l~mdc\',mJ ill through a residential community on the other. So I don't believe we're going to
he ahle. even if we wanted In, to <ltlr;:lcl high volume retail uses \vhich rely on drive-by traffic.
Tlwt being said, weillst took the uses Ihe counly ,!!(IVC us and \ve eliminated the ones we felt wcre
ol~jcclionah1c. And ify'ou\llikc 111 pare it down ('\'ell further. thaI's -- you know, within reason, that's fine with us.
Ct IAtRMAN STI{AtN: Thank vou.
\Vho actually put the lis! log-ether. W{lS it YOLl. i'v1r. Andrea?
MR. i\NDRLA: Yes.
t 'II;\IRM AN STRi\tN: (lkay. tn youI' assembtagc or the list you have scverat Items towards the bollom
oCthe second ]1<lgC. /\]](1 you put c\'cry,thing in Rllll1<ln mll1lcrou~. I used to he good at those, but it looks like--
'vIR. ANIJRi:A: The IiIst t,'ur')
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ye,J!l. the Insl live.
MR. ANIJRLA: 41.42.4.1.44,
L'l1/\tl{MAN STRAIN: XI.I. Rclrcsh IIIV momOJY. What d"es Xl.t meall'.'
MR. i\NIJRLi\: hH1Y-lHle.
CI IAtRMAN ST!{AtN: Okav. tlwuk v"u.
I"v1R. ANl)RI~^: .lust hl:C~IUSe I g-m,'c mysdra cheal note herl:.
('(JiyIMISSIONER SClIIFFE!{: Mark. "lie quiek thillg. ("utd we at this time prohibit the use "fRoman
numerals?
Ct Ii\IRMAN STRAIN: That was n lillle mid. t've never seeuthis one done this way before.
MR. ANIJRLA: I g"t it ti'"m another I'UIJ exampte.
Ct Ii\IRMi\N STRAIN: Did v"u')
Page 24 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 136 of 407
MR. ANDREA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's terrible. Unless you're going to chisel it in a building, it doesn't
make any sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need an abacus to understand it too.
The last five, I could not find those in the referenced time fi'ame for the document that you should have
been using, and so I don't know where you got those Irom.
I have the document with me, and it's probably the same chart that you worked otf of, which is just a -- it's
all we did back then is use a chart tannaL
MR. ANDREA: Yeah, mine's a little bigger.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah -- my eyes are better than yours, see, it must be because I'm younger.
But those last five I find as maybe conditional uses but not pennitted uses. So do you have any objections
with dropping those?
MR. ANDREA: You're exactly right, those were put in there, they were ofTthe conditional use list. In
my discussions with staff and e-mails back and t()Jih, I got the impression that was okay to put in there as
permitted uses.
lfyou'd like to eliminate some of those, I could check with Mr. Goldmeier and--
MR. GOLDMElER: Can I speak to that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. GOLD MEIER: Please, we're next to Scacrest School, and we believe that there'll be people whose
families, whose children attend the school that would wan I tutoring services nearby O[ other educational services,
college prep. And that is your educational service group.
We bclieve that school or vocational-- we're not intending to set up a schoot there, but if there is a nursery
schoot or if there is a day care or something like that. that would be -- I don't want that to be eliminated by the
school or vocational or even any kind of educational thing that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 13c((lre you--
MR. (jOLDMEIER: -- dovetails with Seacrest.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're misunderstanding where I'm going. I'm not objecting to the uses.
I haven't cven gone that J'IL I'm simply tlying to understand how they got in here when they don't meet the GMP
requirements that require you to be tied to a document of a specific date and time. So I've got to get past that first
before I can even discuss if there's an objection to the uses themselves.
So YOll say you got there hec,lUsc stall' told you you could include conditional uses when your ordinance
says pcnnitted uses?
MR. ANDREA: We do have correspondence, ycs, thai we discussed that whole conditional use and
permitted uses. And there's been other cases, I guess, thai they used as precedent __
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's one coming Lip right aileI' this and it says in theirs they wanted the
permitted and conditional uses. And that's in the GMP. In the (iMP I"l' YOLl it doesn't say pemlitted and
conditional uses, it just says penlllttcd.
Now I'm wondering \vhy wc \vould have one have to say conditional uses in order apparently to be found
that way, and this one doesn't say it but it is -- statr apparently has told you that's allowed,
And Illnybc David or Corby could address this again, because I'm puzzled as to how we got here.
And David's walking up behind you, so --
MR. WEEKS: Again, jl)r the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff.
COlllmissioners, both thc Growth Management Plan and the Land Develnpmcnt Code tenninology has
evolved over the years and 110t ,dways in sync with one another. And this to me is an example of where that has
happened and where it causes either conit!siol1 or outright disagreemcnt.
The original 1989 Growth ManagemcnlPlan typically used the word pennitted. So when it would refer to
L1ses being allowed in a subdistrict it would say the pennitled use. And if it gave an LDC zoning district reference
it would say pel111ittcd uses as you see here, the permitted uses of the so-and-so zoning district.
When that occurred, the zoning code at that time had ddierent terminology. It referred to pemlitted
principal uses and conditional uses without the word permitted in front of conditional uses.
Page 25 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda !tem No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 137 of 407
Over time the Land Development Code changed to the fOlll1at ,ve have today \vhere it refers to pennitted
uses which would correlate to permitted principal uscs of the prior zoning eode and the way it was placed into the
Growth Management Plan. And then the Land Development Code today has permitted conditional uses and
permitted accessory use.
My point here is the word permitted uses when originally placed in the Comprehensive Plan or Growth
Management Plan and as added in these various private-initiated subdistricts over time was equal to, I would say,
allowable. Permitted meant allowable. it did not connote pcnnitted principal uses.
And over time we have slarted changing the C'omprehcllsive Plan. StafT would recommend and
ultimately the Board ofCounly COJllmissioners has adopted subdistricts that use a ternl allowable uses. And we've
also even more recently gone on to now state pcnnilted and conditional uses of the so-anel-so zoning district to
catch up with the way the I DC ellfTentty reads.
The staffs position in this GISe, alld it \vmlld apply to other similar subdisttiets, is the teml pennitted uses
does not mcan and it '.vas not intended tOlllcan permitted principal uses. It W,lS intended to mean all of those uses
allowed by the reCerenced z(lning district.
Through the rczoning process then this Board and'iiltim'-ltcly County Commissioners would detemlinc
which of those alluw8ble lIses in a zOlling district. by \\,hatever means, pennitted principal, accessory or
conditionaL \voulJ be allowed ill the givelll'Un. the given zoning doeumcnt.
So I would suggest to you ill SUllllll<H")' that iCs this bod:y\ discretion to detenninc what uses of the
referenced zoning districts. however they arc listed in that zoning district. arc appropriate to approve in this pun,
should tbat bc your recommendation, and ho\v lhey are a!lowcd. Arc they allowed by right or would you allow
them in this pun hut nnly subject to a subsequent cl)nditionalllsc.
MR. KLATZKUW: Ml'. Ch"ir"
CtlAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Sit
IVIR. KLA t'/,KUW: tl'I nHlv. NIl'. Weeks. the tJavis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use distlict,
was this not ,1 private petition alone point in til1le'.)
MR. WEEKS: Yes. it was.
MR. KLATZKUW: And we had public lIeorings about this petition. and there were stafTreports; is that
not true?
MR, WEEKS: That's alltrul'.
MR. KI.A IZKI lW: So ha\e vou reviewed the illitlal petitioll alld the pubhc meetings and the statT
rep0l1s 011 this'.)
MR. WI'nS No,
MR. Kt J\tZXI lW: So you really dOIl't kllow wlWI the illtellt was, just stalldillg up there')
I'v'1R. \\'I':LKS: I would say J do hecause I was u lhml illY llleIllOl")", I W~lS the stall' member that was
il1\'olvcd ill that j1wcess.
MR. KI.AI/KUW: But iC"ou actllall" looked at ~~ iCyou actually went back to the public hearings and
you looked at tile stall rl'ports and J'lIl1 junKed <It till' 1l'stllllony, ISI1;1 It possible that that intent is just right there
and we'll know one \vay or the other?
MR. WEL:KS: tl's possible. Ime,"1. ktf we n t eallllot stand here and tell you that in the staff report the
\vord permitted was uscd ill a eCl1<lin way' would hc explained. Ijust don't know.
tvlR. KI.;\T/KtlW: Wetl. I thillk It'S ti,ir to the apptieallt IIerc, vou know. iCwe're discussing whether or
not he gets conditional Llses. since this was (\ pri\<ltc petition at OIlC point ill time. the intent is likely there what was
Illeant nHhcr than ;:It tllis IXlin( in time. I mC;:\Il. you have it. YOll just need tulook at it.
CtlAIRMAN STRAtN: The n your premise IClr sayillg that the pennitlcd uses arc both now permitted
uses by right and permitted Llses hy conditiomtl Lise seClllS to he based 011 the involvement of the Land
Developmcnt Code and the languagc in that code over the time to \vhat we have today. I see you nodding your
head ycs.
I\iIR. WEEKS: Yes. ycs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. this -- the problem I have is this document is based on the Land
Dc\'clopmcllt Code ill clTeet 011 June 27th or2005. ^nd let me read to \vhat staff told me was in effect at that time.
Page 26 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 138 of 407
Under the zoning district uses, Table I, permissible land uses in each zoning district. And that goes on,
and that apparently is what Mr. Andrea used when he pulled his uses out.
Table 2, land uses that may be allowed in each zoning distlict as accessory uses or conditional uses. I do
not see the word permissible in there or pemlittable.
My question was more specific. Based on the Land Development Code of June 27th 01'2005, would these
items be pennitted -- would they be pennitted uses in the commercial mixed use district?
I just read to you how they're considered an allowable accessory use or conditional use, which is different
than Table I, which is a list of the pemlittcd uses. And this is important, because there's five elements on here I
can't find how they lit based on the GMP specilic language or the reference that was in there.
And, you know, David, you're the expert on the GMP, I'll grant that. Yon probably know this connty
better than anybody regards to the rules. If you say that's fine, I'll live with that. I want to make slife though we're
011 firm ground. That's all I'm asbng.
MR. WEEKS: I sland by what I stated earlier, Mr. Chainnan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything through Pages 1,2 and 3?
MR. PRITT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAfRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. PRITT: Just b,-ielly. Actually, I might be of some assistance, rather than getting in the way.
And I've asked Mr. Goldmeier to look at these very carefully. I think you started with XLI and through
XLV: is that correct?
And I can't count those either, but one is amusement and recreatiunal services. If that is a suggestion that
that go 10 Cl condilionaluse, Mr. (Joldmeier has no problem with that; is that correct?
I-leis shaking his head yes, he has no problem with it.
And same thing with fi'aternaIlodges, private club or social clubs.
Schools, vocational, I need to say something about that 111 a minute.
But thcn I'm not sure how wc handle the last onc.
But I think that those two. Ihe last two that I mentioned, that would be okay to have a conditional use; is
tbat right, Mr. Cioldmcier'? That is the Craternallndges -- let's see. amllsement and rec'reational, fratenlaJ lodges and
schools. vocational, is that a problem?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at the SIC Code as you speak, and the only one that may create a
compatibility issue is the educational services group. 8211 108222.
MR. PRITT: Well, thai plus on schools I do want to the say something about that. Because--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, X243 n
MR. PRITT: -- what happened to the school board member.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL bul X243 through X229, J can tell you what they are: data processing:
business or secretarial schools; vocational schools not c1assdieu elsewhere, like nursing schools and real estate
schools; and schools and educational services not classified elsewhcre, like ati schools, charm schools, cooking
schools. things like tlwt.
The educational services, 821 J to 8222, are elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities
anujunior colleges.
Now. you don't have the capacity to do those, so I really think the educational services shouldn't hurt you
if that was a conditional use. But if we leave in schools vocational, unless we hear some objections from the
public, that onc 1ll,1Y be the ollly one that you might bcneJ-it from being next to Seacrcst if you succeed.
MR. PRllT: Yes, part of what my thought was, not my client's necessarily. is that il is possible that there
is an existing school -- I presumc that Seacrest is a charter school -- and unfortunately Mr. Eastman left. There are
some rules concerning -- there's a preemption. there's rules concerning registered charter schools. And if Seacrest
wanted to have a rcsource center, that would make a lot of sense to have something oiT its own campus but very,
very close by. And we woutd like 10 at least be able to do that. So we would tike to -- we'd kind of like to keep
that aspect or it in anyho\v.
And onlhe other ones, I'tl just let Mr. Goldmeier--
MR. GOLDMEIER: Wcll, the amusement and recreation_ we're not intending to have some sort of
Page 27 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 139 of 407
arcade, but we would like to be ahle to have cOllllllunity room or some activity for the residents of the community
and not have that -- and locate it in the mixed use element and not have that precluded by this -- by the
intclvretation that recreational services dnes 110t -- we \-vant to he able to have a community room or some
recreational fllcility for the community located there. and we Jon't \vant to have that precluded.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hut do you -- I think whoever put these numbers together used the wrong
number. 7911 is only dance studios, schools and halls. '{Oll can do ballroom dancing, you can be a dance
instructor or you can have professional dancing schools. but that's all that number provides.
I think what you meant to provide is 7L)<)9. Therein. though. lies a problem, because that's a use of about
what !<Joks like could be a list o!'atmost 60 <Jr 70 di!'!'erent uses. s<Jme o!'them very intense, likes game parlors and
gambling machines and animal shows and circuses.
I know, but you know where I'm going. v../e just can't lump all this into a number and then find out the
project evolves into something tC1Tible.
MR. (JOLD!'vlEIER: Can then: be ,n provision that it would be recreation fClrresidents of the project?
CIIAtRMAN STRAIN: Yes, but you don't want thai number is what I'm saying._
But I think it' throughout the course of this process you guys cumc back iwthe end and recommend some
language that tits \-vhat you want to do. \\ie \\iould cCI1ainly consider Il.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And llien tl!l !::>. there's Just the broad category ofeducat;ona! plants. So--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wetl. tbat's" schoot board. We hadn't had the seh()o! board to the GMP. And if
you recall. they have a deal with thc count)' OJ} 1l0\V we're supposed to look at their things. I'm not sure that --
there's no SIC Code so I can't comc hack with something. and Mr. Eastman's not here right now.
MR. PRITT: Yeah. that's unl')l1llllatc heeause there are some preemptions that apply t(lr schools and lor
ehal1er schools, 'lIld they're two dil'lcrcnt ptaees. Well. they're at! under tOOl or whatever that is o!'the code.
Sn -- and I dO!l'tthink an}' or us h<1\'e the lime or interest in getting into the effect of that. But we would
like to "t le"st have that to tlte extent tllat th"t woutd he e(l\'ered hv the sehoot taws.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think that's probably a given. But witlt the intention, I think we're okay.
Anything else? Ms. Caron'?
COMMISSt( )NER C,\t{( )N: Well, .just ag'''n. h"sed on space and the supposed vision. I mean, the two
categories or hardw.lrc stores ilnd home supply stores. and 11i.)r,!lc1 which is which. which is the big box and which
isjust a lillk local hardware s1\)rc, which y(\U might be ahle 1<.1 get in there. And auto and home supply stores. You
kilO\\', I think those arcjust ]Jot even close 10 \\'hat would end lip there.
MR. PRITT: We tltink tlt"l tlte lill1it"tion. tltat tlte square t()()tage limitation that witt be in that district witt
be.1 self-limiting !;\ctllL Ynu'rc not gl)ing to gl'l a hig hox in this locatinn. you're not going to get a supennarkct in
this ]oc;:ltioll l)l~causc or other pnwisiollS in square It)()tage in thc endc. These arc really small. relatively small
stores or pfopcI1ics ill questioll.
COMMtSSIONER CARON: 11 tltellll1"kes it superl1uous t"r it to he ill here to begin with, and it should
come ou1. \\'110 kllmvs wllat wil1ll<lppCll III the future.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murr","
C'()MMtSSI(lNIR MURRAY: Is tltere '"1\' proscriplioll on the Idea ofcxpanding cOll1mcrcia! units and
not having them ;:\s segrcgakd so thiJt ;:1 larger activity' could he placed there?
]'vlR. PRITT: \'es. there is. And Illay'he Rohcrt can lillJ tlwt ill his copy. There1s some limitations on the
COIllllllTcia] <lspects.
COMMISSIONI'.R MURRAY: \Vltilc he's looking at tllal. tltat being the case theil, that we could be
assured that irit \VlTC to go j()r\vard that ill C\Try case. assuming. say', Ii.)!" the sakc of argument there were 18 units,
thcrel()]'c there would be I:"; or/ices. businesses. stores_ whatever. and that would never change.
1\1R. PRITT: No, I don't think it's writtcn that way. LetTs look ;Jt thc language.
IvIR. ANDREA: Robcrt Andrea t"r tlte record.
Single use is a maxilllUlIl or] ).O()() square kel.
COMMISSI( lNLR MtJRRA Y Wheece.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okav, 1'IlI1l0t sure how you recorded that wheeec.
Page 28 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 140 of 407
COMMISSIONER MlIRRA Y: W-H-E-E-E-E.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions through Page 3'1
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would also consider removing ALF's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any comment on that? Ms. Ahem has suggested removing the ALF issue
from the list of uses.
MR. PRITT: I don't know that we would have objection to it. I'll check. I'm not sure you can do that,
though. Again, that might be something that you need to check with your attorney on.
CHAIRMAN STRAtN: I Ionestly, of all the uses you have, that's a pretty passive use. Is there a reason
that you have to objcct to it?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would think with the surrounding neighbors and also having people
upstairs, that woutd not be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they don't necessarily have to have people upstairs, they could design the
ALF, as long as they've got some --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. But all of the commercial space has residential on top; correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's an option. It says may be allowed, it doesn't say it's required. So we
don't know yet what they're going to do or how they're going to lay their buildings out.
MR. PRITT: Since there's one across the street, I guess that there might be a limit to the number that
could be in the area.
But I rcally -- I really think that we need to be sure that that is something that you're allowed to do,
because it sticks in thc back of my mind that that might be in the same category as other state favored uses that
preempt the local govclllmenL
We don't have an ALF in mind or chomping its bit to come in. And with t 5,000 square feet limitation, I
don't know, that woutd be pretty small.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: It would be diflicult.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to Pages 4 and 5. Anybody have any questions?
M r. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And maybe you all are comf()rtable. And I don't have any
pm1icular, but I guess \vcTn: saying then that as these arc offered, we're going to accept these suggestions as to what
they want to il1CO'l)()fate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. it's a staJ1ing point. But honestly, I'm waiting to hear the neighborhood to
see what they got 10 say about the uses before we --
COMMISSIONER MlIRRA Y: Oh, it's not a closed matter.
CHAfRMAN STRAIN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wcll, Ijust waot to let you know it's not closed --
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing's closed until we linish all the public input --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- it's not closed tllr me either.
CIIAIRMAN STRAtN: Okay. Pages 4 and 5'1
COMMISSIONER MLlRRA Y: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. MlIlTay'!
COMMISStONER MLJRRA Y: t wrote my notes on thcsc pages, so they may not be absolutely rclevant.
But I have a couple oftl1illgs tbatl'd like to bring up.
Now I understand the 40 or 50 comlllcrcial units a little bit bcller. 15,000 squares is quite a bit. 1 tried to
figure out how you Ire going to have walk ups from] 5,000 squares Oil a line. Thatls not going to have a walkup,
celiainly.
Your architect indicated 28 to 30-j(lOt heights, but I sec that we havc 55-j(lOt heights. We've already had a
discussion about ratios.
What is it, is the architect planning 28 to 30-lllot heights or are we realistically talking about 55?
MR. ANDREA: Again, that was lell in therc. We did bring it down from what we had beJllre. It's for
architectural features, depending on what their final design is. The limit is three stories. But the architectural
features, or clock to\ver, something like that, JIm not sure what they have in mind there.
Page 29 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 141 of 407
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So iI'we slipulalC Ihal. Ihat would not bea problem, that it would be for
arcllitectural features only.
MR. ANDRI'A: Coneet. Yeah. we could do that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And the size of the units is 700 square feet?
MR. ANDREA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you're latking -- I know Mr. Goldmeier spoke about the price points
that he's thinking he's going to reach the pcople. And he spoke (11' a f,"nily of four. Scven hundred square feet is a
very small unit. Has that ehallged" Because I see that that stitl says 700 square feet.
MR. ANDRI'A: We were at 600 prior 10 Ihis.
COMMtSSIONI'R MURRA Y: Oh. you moved up 100 squares.
MR. ANDREA: We'vc moved up 11111 square ICet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well. I would say we again. but that would be impertinent.
MR. GOt.DM EIER: Mr. Murray. can I explainlhat. please"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Pleasc.
MR. (;OLDMEIER: That's an anit"ct of dealing with Ihe at1C,rdable worktilrce element: The
conventional units are going to have to be nicer and generate 1110re prolit. so theire going to have to be larger.
And to me a 7()() squ8re foot is nothing more than a one-bedroom, and would not be larger. you know,
higher bedroom count tll<:lll one hedroo!!1. 1\0 intention of doing a 70(l square foot three-bedroom or two-bedroom.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm contl!sed then. Why do we still retain thai as being a condilion" You
have 7UO square lcct. )' OL! haven't c1l<lllgcd your lable.
MR. ,iOLDMEIER: l\o. \l'e have. \IT wenl tn'm six to seven. Bul tlIal's the minimum size unit. And the
minimum size unit wlndd hc ~l onc-bcdroom. Not C\'CI)' uniL cCI1ainly not three hedroOlns, arc going to be 700
square feet n
COMMISSIONLR MURRA Y: Sl' arc you suggesling u
MR. (iOLDMLtLR: uJust the minimum
COMMISSIONER MURR." Y: u thai ot the :']4 witII the t II and the 10 perecnts, that those would bc the
700 square root units'!
MR. (jOLDMEtER: The to and 10. correct. yes.
('(lMMISSIONER MURRAY: i\nd alllhe resl would be larger'l
MR. (jOLDMI'tER: Yes.
('( HvlMISSIONI iR Ml iRR/\ Y: Bnllhe huilding's C\lnliguralions wilt all essenlially he the same, so it's a
matter of n
MR. (iOLDMUER: No. the e,lmor I'leade will he lhe samc. The huilding contiguration will he
di rtcrent lhllll t he conventional -- the alfordahle \vork Coree units to till' convcntional units.
Becausc don't forget. we lwvc III generate some income from the cOllventiollal units 10 ofrset the loss from
the art,mlablc work t"ree unils.
Ct JMMISStUNLR I'vIURRA \: Wetl, t kllow t eerlmnly woutdn'l ask to eompet you, but I know tlIatll1
previolls submissions here we have seen ;:1 nlllge whell a plan is lllade where they're really intending to do a range,
where they inlend to attract lilll1ilics. /\nd I dOll'l kllow that )-"Oll call allract a t~Hni]y with 700 square feet.
MR. GO!.DMlilt:R: I agree.
COMMISStONER I'vlURRi\ Y: And S() do \(IU !l;lve an idea oftu)w targe the targesl unit might he?
MR. (iU[,DMtJER: I don 'I think we've gotten 10 thai poinl yet. But I can say that we've done other
pn~jeets and other sinlilclr pn)jects, and we ll<lvC a range or units, and tlley'n: all substantially larger than that when
it's meant to he a cOllvcntimwlunil.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it I were lolry 10 tigure this based on the suppositions that I'm really
hearing hcre, in the .dTord;:lblc building -- wc'll call it that li)[ lack of n I'm going to make my supposition f()[ the
moment. you'll correct me.
Vv'e're going to have one huilding that's going 10 have 700 square f()ot and the offices and the walk-up and
whatever. And then \ve'n: going to have other buildings that are going to -- in order to accommodate more than
700 square feeL y'ou're going to have to expand the intemal structure.
Page 30 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 142 of 407
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And theref()re, while you might have had 20 in one building, you'll now
have 16 in another, or 14 or 12. Is that a reasonable supposition?
MR. GOLDMEIER: You mean the number you're quoting as the number ofullits?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just as a supposition --
MR. GOLDMEIER: Within the same space, yes, we can -- we would put more units within the sallle
length of building in the a(,(("dable work force lllixed use area than we will in the conventional area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But you didn't bother to say that, and that's what's concerning to
me, that we have nothing to guide us by.
So in other words. if this were approved as it stands, it's also theoretically possible, even though you say
not, that you might by default end up with everyone ofthcm being 700 square feet.
MR. GOLDMEIER: If that's what you assume, then we woutd be glad to state otherwise.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm happy to hear you say that. Because you mentioned an expensive
type of design where you're. going into this thing.
I just am --' I'm very much concerned with the contradictions as I see them, because 1 -- an expensive type
of design is a matter of how one thinks.
Thcn:!s also a sea of parking. There's no parking under any buildings, there are no garages. I don't even
see a covered porch to protect the vehicles.
It strikes me as when we use the tcnn, as you've employed it, pcdestrian friendly, with all of those
vehicles. And I willtclt you, I'm a littte bit familiar with the Community Character Plan, having been its vice chair
and served for t(lUr and three-qual1er years on that pat1icular advisory board. I can tell you this: Parking is away
from the commercial. Parking is hidden away as much as possible. And the front and the back, as you've
indicated, are going to be the same amenity.
So whcre do we put the parking') And it just looks -- I don't kllow how attractive that is, in truth. Maybe
you can embellish f(J[ me.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, the intent is to makc it attractive. And what makes -- what in theory would
makc a building attractive costs money. You have ditlcrent -- facades vary, and, you know, one's coming in and
one's pointing out. And )'OU put gingerbread or some other work on the outside of the facade, you put in balconies,
you have extra httle roof structures -- I'm sure that Matt can explain in detail, and Mr. Schiffer could expand on
thaI.
But all of those things to make the building more attractive and less barracks-like costs money.
Novv, the issue about parking is an issuc that we'vc bome in mind fh)ll1 the very beginning. The reason
we proposed a traditiol1alncighborhood design was because that's what we were doing elsewhere in the state. And
in fact we havc experienced that with developing projccts that Malt has becnthe architect on elsewhere in the state
that are traclitionalneighborhood design.
So the basis -- and I'm not the expert in that, but as I understand, one of the prime concerns is to hide
parkIng.
Now, I look at other projects in Collier County and I see an apartment building in a sea of parking. In a
traditional neighborhood design the parking is in the rcar of the building and hidden from the accessway.
And il'l may just touch upon somcthing that Mr. Schiffer brought up versus the orientation of the
buildings in the parking, is we intend to do a traditional neighborhood dcsign community. But -- and thatls what
we designcd and that's the site plan you see there. But the oricntation of the buildings is toward the internal
roadway, which gives it the attractiveness. The parking is in thc rear of the buildings and it just so happens behind
the rear --lhe parking in the rear oCthe buildings there are public right-of-ways.
If we werc to be asked to tlip the buildings and having them f'lcing toward the public rigbt-ot~ways, I
don't think that would work vcry wet!, because pm1 of the attraction of having a traditional neighborhood desib'll
eomlllunity is that you hcl've parallel parking and then you have other pedestrian access, and a certain sort of
streetseape from the street that they face on, in which Counly Bam Road and Davis Boulevard would be those
streets.
But we can't have paraltel parking there and we can't do a lot of the other things that we need to do to
Page 31 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
f\'[jencJa Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 143 of 407
make the buildings auractive in traditional neighhorhood design, quote, unquote huildings if we oriented toward
thcm toward Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road. Thus we created our own private road in which we
incorporated all of those traditional neighborhood design elements and tried to make it as attractive as possible.
}-Io\\'cver, behind the parking lots there are those rights-or-way which we canlt use, we can't access
directly Irom, we can't park on and we can't do othcr things. And also, this Board, the last time we were before
this Board, the Board made it very clear thcy wanted the buildings hidden from those rights-of-ways. So what we
tried to do is buffer them with not onty one, but two tevets of landscaping. I think we have two levels of trees, isn't
that correct, MatL yes, in order to adequately buffer them.
And I think \\'e'rc -- there's n contlid hdween \vhat Mr. Schiffer stated at the beginning, arc we going to
build a traditionalncighhorhood design cOllllllunity. This is a -- we can't do anything but with this site plan. This
is a tradiliowd neighborhood design site plan. Tbc conniet of Ihat and having, where do we put the parking?
Because as you -- if you just try' to think the problem out. this is the best solution to the problem.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well. sir. I won't take issue with you per se, but I will tell you that to me
that master plan would show any number or alternativcs for building formal. It could he condominiums, it could
be anything. To conform to a traditional intellxetable to being pedestrian friendly and more like smart growth
principals, we would havc to have a much tincr dctail pfan. And I think thc absencc of that makes it very difficult
for us to really embrt:lce, or at Ieast this person here.
J'm not against a project. I ,11ll ,1g,Jinst ,\ pn~ject tl1<1t ultimately will f~lil if it docs not provide what it's
intended. And tile -- you klH.l\\!. 5th A\'CnllC, or which f\'1r. Pritt is considerably aware of, is a fine looking
neighborhood, but itlleeds care and attention. And times change. places -- you know, facilities have to change, the
facades change to ;:lCeOIll]llOlbte lIpdalillg.
You1rc coming in v.'ith \\'e don't evell kilO\\' what kind or design. vV'e don't know what it is you have --
you've shown us sume renderings \vhieh do not provide fix 1111.:.' adequate understanding, not on the basis of the
building:. sir, but on tile basis of the totality. And I'm speaking !lO\\i nflhe parking again.
Have )"Oll considered. and I recogni7c the cxpensc associated with it, have :/Ol] considered, since you want
55 fecI, to have the buildings higher ,IllJ hm'c pC:ll'king U1Hkl1lcath?
MR. (jULDMEIER: That is ecol1ol1liealty l10t ICasible, because we're spel1ding, you know, enough
making, you know, two j~lcadcs, et eelcra. That's an entirely' different t),11e of building as well. And rve seenl for
instanec, in -- what's tile onc beginning \\'itl1 all 1\'1'.' Mercalcl? I saw that's a traditional neighborhood design
building with Sllllctured pm'king inlht' rear. /\nd the Ba:--'li'ollt project is also traditional neighborhood design with
structured parking int11e rC<lr c:dso, but those arc llluch higher buildings. taller buildings and mueh greater density.
St) we'rc essclltiall:--' propl)Si]lg <l better VerSil)]) or a jlarden apartlllcllt complex --
( 'UMMtSSIUNER MURRAY: 1'lIat" \\'11<11 it is. vcs. It" a compromise.
And please, in terms of using the concept \)1" sm;:n1 growth and traditiol1alneighhorhood, you're right, it's a
gardcn apartment arrangement \vlth SP]lle COllllllLTcial that ]l1;]Y or lllilY' not sllceeed, depending upon what YOlllre
(lllowcd I.l1timatdy. Thank you, sir.
('j L\IRl'vlA:\ STRAIN: Okay. we'rl' still Oll P;lgCS -+ allll 5. Anyhody have any questions on Pages 4 and
5'/
(No response.)
CtlAIRrvIAN STRAIN: Mr. tjotdmcicr. while you'rc availablc. olll'age 4 under Item !lA. it delincates
the recreatioll,l1 uses allowed as <JClTSSOI'Y' 10 the- projtx1. It seems 10 give you everything that I think you're
seeking in the amusement and recreation category' 011 the prior page. I don't kllO\V then why we would need that
amuscment and recreational category. J c<m't see what YOLl would \vant he yond \\'hat's on BA.
MR. (jUl.tlMt'tI:R: lethat's Ihc casc. then t'd agrec.
MR. PRITT: Makc sure he reads that tirs!.
Can \ve have a lllinule?
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. you'rc going 10 havc lunch, so you'll be available to take plenty "ftimc.
The next item J want to bring up. and I think this is probably as good as any, is there a pereentagc of
square root<lge that you're \villing to cOlllmit tll lix tile mixed use component mainly the rcsidential, of the
conllllercl<11 seetinl1?
Page 32 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 144 of 407
The whole intention of this project was to be mixed use.
MR. ANDREA: Con-ect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yet we've asked you how many residential units you're going to put in tbe
commercial buildings. You've not supplied ns with any kind of number. You've provided where you might go or
you may go or you could go.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Slightly less than 50. It would be the 47 atfordable and workforce units plus one of
every unit type that would be conventiona!. So if we have three unit types, it would be 47 plus three. If we have
four unit types, it would be 47 plus four.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could we as a standard put a minimum amount ofresidential units that
you'll combine with the commercial so that this becomes a true mixed use commercial project if it goes forward?
MR. GOLDMEIER: Ycs, as long as it would enable us to put all of our atfordable workforce units, which
are going to be a different type of unit, in those buildings and not put uuits that would be the -- I refer to as the
conventional units into those buildings.
We woutd like to separate thc -- and!lavc a ditferent unit tYl'e in the mixed use element from tbe
residential element. As long as we can do.that, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not asking you to put a maximum. So I'm saying a minimum. A
minimum would alleast guarantee the process as being -- the intention of tIle process being met.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, at S0111e point over IUllch I'd like you--
MR. GO!.DMEIER: Forty-seven.
CHAIRMAN STRAtN: Okay.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Minimu111, It's not a 1113ximu111. It would be the workforce and atIordable units,
whatever the count is, plus onc of every unit type, whatevcr we wind np with. And that's what I'd like to state the
minimum would be.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Makes seuse,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go to Pages 6 and 7. And Cherie', we're probably t 5 minutes or so
a\vay. Is that going to work for you?
Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have on 6.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: (io ahc3d. Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SClllFFER: And Bob. you can answer this thing. The Davis Road right-of-way. The
buildings are kind of tal!. I'd like to kind of back thClll away a little bit. Your site plan has them backed away. So
could you lllake that, the setback, 25 led or the building height, whichever is greater?
MR. ANDREA: On the Davis Boulevard right-ol~way?
COMMISSIONER SCIIn:FER: Yeah. I'ssentially what that could do is, you know, you've got a 55-loot,
that could maybe make it 55. It looks like -- remember, this is in the residential we're at right now.
MR. ANDRLoA: Right.
MR. GOI.DMEIER: If it's a two and three-story building and we put the two-story against the roadway,
then rd imagine that you're refelTing to whatever p0l1ion of the building \\'e put against the roadway. And we
could step it up bebind it.
COMMISSIONER SClllFFER: Corrcct. yeab, surc.
MR. GOLDMElER: Tbat's finc.
MR. ANDREA: Or building height is what -- how you --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or tbc buitding beigbt. Essentially if you want to you could, you know,
draw that little line and they couldjuSl stay under it.
MR. PRITT: M3Y wc get back to you aner tunch?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, you have to use the microphone, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What be said is tlicy want to get back to us. And that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think you shoutd.
MR. PRITT: Sorry about tbat. I've said that t .000 times to others. I apologize.
Page 33 of 74
'~.,_.~---
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
P,genda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 145 of 407
I'd like to get back to you ,ilkr lunch on that aller I've con felTed with the architect to see whether there are
any problems.
COMMISStONER SCHIFFER: And thc intent of the question is not to put a 55-foot building 25 feet off
the right-ol~way.
The distance bctween structures, it's one-hat I' the buitding height. So nonnally we see that as the
combined building height. So what is your intent Oil tbe distance between structures?
MR. ANDREA: What do you mcan the combined n the examples I've looked at have always said it tins
way. I don't --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, usually it's tike one-hat I' the combined building heights, or
essentially the height of one of the buildings. Isn't that right?
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: It's SIlH, sum of building heights is a reterence you'll sec in quite a few of our
PLIO's.
COMMISSIONER SCt IIFFER: Which docs give you that one-to-one ratio.
MR. ANDREA: ] apologize. I tHlve not n the ones I looked like is my samples. I did not see it worded
that way. I suppose arehitccturalty if that works then n
COMMISSIONER SClIIFFER: That could get big. though. I mean, the other question, maybe come
back aller lunch, look at it.
I mean. the w(llkways you're going to have bet\veen buildings are going to be narrow, 50, 60 feet. So I
think that one-to-olle is im]1011ant, probably is the lire code issues on the distance, so -- but you call just explain
\vhat that is, tlmCs really -- because one-hall' the huilding height, there's t\\'O buildings. so you pick the tallest one,
the shol1est one. hoth or thel11 combined?
And I'm done on that. thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (lkny. we're Oil Pages (, and 7. Anybody have any questiolls')
[\ilr. i\/lurray?
COMMISSIONU< MU!ZRA Y: Yes. Willi rcgard to Commissioller Schiffer's thoughts, so if -- I want to
undcrstand it. thaCs the only reason I'm asking. Brad. If \vc take that commcrcial building where they have the
55-foot }1<.'\l1 ()r it. that\ tt) show. and then the rest ur the huilding were, say, 37 feel. you take the height of the one
and the height orthe other and divide it and that's Ille height t1l<lt ynu're talking ,lhout?
COMMISSt( lNl'R SCHtFFFR: Right. But remcmber thc residcntial call be 55 feet tall, too.
COMMISStONt.R Ml:RRAY: YC;,(,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFlTR: And actually buitdillg heiglit in this case would be the zoned, not the
actual anYW;:lY. because --
~'IR. A:-JLJRI.A: Correct.
C( l\IMtSSIONFR SCIIIlTFR: -- mour code budding height me,ms I.Oned.
MR. A:-JDRFA: ('<mect. So that woutd be 45 ICet"
COMMtSSIONER SCt IIFFER: Ye',(1 tt's tvpicat that we add them. Imcan. tlie problem the way yon
read it. which is the rc~lI reaSUll I I](\ticnllt. it\ hair the huilding height hut therds two buildings side by side.
\Vhich building? '{ou could say the sh0l1est. the tallest. or do lwlrthe sLIm. which is pretty COlllmon. Or come up
\vith <lIlLLlllher -- my nlvorile's greater tllan ::W reel. just to keep the lire c()tic a\.\'ay 11"0111 you.
CI IAtRMAN STR!\tN: (lknv. anvb"dv -- Ms. C'"on'!
COMMISSIONER CAROI\: Y"',(l. \(,"'re goillg hl add a tine that says on this chart somewhere that
delincates the maximum is thnx stories. l'lllTect'.'
MR. i\NIJRLi\: Okay. Fm't""te n lea" ,,,Id a telotllole where it sayslllaxilllulll height. I'll put a
l()otllote three. limited to three stories. \Vill th<lt work'!
C11i\IRMi\N STRi\IN: 111 tile I\IM. they stated they w"uld not exceed three stories. So I would suggest
you put an asterisk next to your maximum height rcrcrence. :llld then down below it, or a subnote three. and put a
subllote three that says not to exceed three stories. ThaI would get you there and still keep your height.
,Anybody else 011 Pages 6 and 7'.'
(Nn response.)
CIIi\JRM!\N STRAIN: Okay, Mr. (;"tdmcicr'!
Page 34 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 146 of 407
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ])0 you intend to keep this project a condominium project?
MR. GOLDMEIER: 1 have no idea, and I can't make any commitment. The market being what it is, I
don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL the rcason I asked is condominiums are difficult in the market with the
new rules. Under Exhibit B, you've basically limited yourself to condominiums by the fact you've not stated a
minimum lot area or width under the townhouse scenario.
So without that, my assumption was you're going to be all condominiums. So I'd like to get tbat elarified.
MR. GOLDMEIER: If it is sold to individual unit owners, it may be possible to -- if you're worrying
about a two-story unit that I refer to as a townhouse unit, that unit can either be sold as a condominium having part
of a common c1cments or it can be sold as a fee simple, if it rests on the ground. If it rests above another unit, it
would have to be a condominium. And it would depend on basically what the market is at the time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'm trying to say is, if you intend to do fee simple in any manner
whatsoever, we're going to need some kind of minimum lot area, minimum lot width for those products that you
woutd want to use fee simple. Otherwise you could build a five-foot-wide townhouse and deelare it to be --I know
that's impractical but --
MR. GOLDMEIER: If you'd like, we'll come up with a minimum fi)!' you. I'll talk to Matt and we'll
come up with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
One other item is the fact that these units are going to be as close as they are to both Davis Boulevard and
County Bam Road. We know County Barn Road is going to be widened and Davis Boulevard is under the 1'])0'1'
capabilities. Who knows what they're going to do with it.
Do you have any objection to putting a provision in here that you will not be requesting a sound wall be
installed by the municipalities in regards to YOLlr frontage on those roads?
MR. (;OLDMEIER: Absolutely no problcm.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ukay. Bct(lJ'c we move ttlrward, the Planning Commission. do you want to
break now to get down there before the food gels all eatcn or do you want to wait till noon? Preferences?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: lt's tine now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then at this pOlllt we will take a (me-hour break. We'll resume at 12:45
hack ill these chambers. So we!1l s~e everybody then.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good atielllOOll, everyone. Welcome back from the lunch hour. It's 12:45, we'll
resume tbe meeting wbere we teti otr bel()re we stal1ed [ill' luncb. At that time we were still asking questions of
the applicant and his representatives.
We leti olT Oil Pages 8 a",1 9 of thc PUD exhibit, Exhibit A. As we customarily do, I'll turn to the
Planning COllllllissiolllllcmbcrs. Do we have any questions 011 Pages 8 and 97
CUM MISSIONER SCIII!'!'''\{: I do.
CtIAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer')
COMMISSIONIR SCIJlF!'ER: LeI me tilld it.
Okay. And I guess Robert this might be fix you. fJut since you haven't defined where the commercial
component is -- and 1'1111101 Slife 11m happy with that. because you could, i(x example, just go triangular across the
site there or something. But when you look at Table 2, it's for mixed use !vlU tract development standards, light?
MR. ANDREA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: But Isn't it essentially for thc commercial component?
There's no rcal M lJ tract. Tberc's some buildings that have MU writtcn on them. But what is the MU
tract, and is that the same thing as the commercia] component?
MR. ANDREA: That's one in the same, (orrcct. And you're right, we do not have it distinguished on this
master plan. l-:arlyon I believe there was a liIle there. But generation after generation, that line has not been put in
that.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: And the confusion is that the exhibil, the one you just pointed at, MU is
Page 35 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
/\genda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 147 of 407
-- I mean, are those two little MU tracts or is -- so I think we should clean that up to say this is the commercial
component development standards.
MR. ANDREA: Okay. So a tine depicting exactly the tivc-acre--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I think that should be picked out. I mean, the awkwardness is
we had dcvelopment standards that we're very used to handling on tracts. But this isn't really tracts, you have two
buildings noted as MU.
So, tllr cxample, pm1 of that rcsidentiat might be in that commercial component, too. You obviously
intend to have residential, bccausc you're discussing it, yet that building's an R, so that wouldn't apply to this, I
guess, maybe? Ma~ybe it \vould.
MR. ANDREA: I believc that commercial tract, I mean. if I wcre to draw a line, it would look something
like that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So I guess my question is, you know, there's a maximum, not a
minimum. So, you know -- and ~lgain, your answer prior W~lS we'll do it at SDP. But since this is a development
standard or something -- so are you going change the mixed use I\.lU tract to cOl11m~.rcial component development
standards?
MR. ANDREA: I'm not surc. I mean. how is It wnttcn that in thc subdistrict -- is it commercial
component?
COMMtSSIONER SCIIIFFFR: It's commcrcial component. I don't think n MU tract is not a word out
of tlie n
MR. ANDREA: That was the result of going through the rezoning process that it became the MU tract.
COMMtSSIONER SCHIFFER: Wc're at thc rezoning process. aren't we"
CHAIRMAN STRAtN: Yes. we mc. this is the rezoning process.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFI'R: Looked like it to me.
MR. ANDREA: Okay. here. Barry's slH1willg the n
MR. (;OLDMFIER: This IS an ,)Ider--
('IIAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. vou have tt' use the m;crt'(1hone.
MR. GOI.DMFIER: This is an older versit'n. I'tl have to tind a date. But the ct'ml1lercial -- and by the
\vay, coullly st<lIThad drawn the line <lIlt! gi\'cn LIS the line and we SOli oj' followed it. .
But this is the oCllcial separation urlhe mixed use suhdistrict li'om the residential subdistlict. It goes down
the middle of the "ike and then It Illltt'w, alul1~ the ru"d. t dun't knuw if it', un the edge ufthc road t'r what part of
the road it is. /\nd then it goes down. I'd S~lY cllltin,\! across lhe Ii'onl or one of the buildings. It cuts across the
li"onl of -- let's see. can I borrow YOllr pen, please',J
So it's going do\\.'nlhe middle of the lake. .\Loin).; downlhis mad. and then cutting a<:ross either in the front
(lethe building ur inside the building or.lllst ;11 till' edge orthc huilding. And that \vould be the commercial tract.
the coml1H:rciall1lixcd use tract.
('OMMtSStONI,:R S(,IIIFFt'R: tlby.
/\Ild, you Know, J gw:ss it's up lu st~dl. :\ly suggcsllnll would be to actually' have a document shmving
that. .And that y'Oll don't u heeausl' right now \vith what we're given in this application, you have two little MU
tracts, and they're I.-shaped things, which I think thc),Tre representing buildings, nol tracts.
MR. ANDJ{LA: COtTect.
MR. (it lL!JiVIEIER: l!erc. t got a hctlL'r one. RI~tH here.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFEJ{: And I ~uess vou were allowed tp have--
MR. (itll.IJMElFJ{: I !ere's pne.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, unt()rtun<ltcly you\e g:ot 11..1 use the microphone each time: the court reporter
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is tliat an exhihit, Ray"
MR. ANDREA: That's upt an exhibit.
MR. (jOIDM EIER: It was an exhibit one time in the past. But this is the tine. As -- at one point.
COMMISStONFR SCI II FI'L R: Yeah, t mean. that drawin~'s totally confi.lsing with the building, so --
allyvv'ay, mayhe we could bring an exhibit hack -- Imcan. an orphaned exhibiCs not going to help us.
Page 36 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda ttem No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 148 of 407
Okay, so again, I think we should clean up what this -- the standards I{lr that. And then what you're
showing is actually -- and I wasn't sure that was true, so you have no buildings in the commercial component that
are purely residential, they're all mixed use buildings?
MR. ANDREA: What we're showing is mixed use, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you really don't need multi-family and townhouse
development standards.
MR. ANDREA: I believe there's that option that we can put strictly residential in that area, if we choose
to do so.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's move down. Again, the building height thing, we should discuss
that, because it's one-half building height and--
MR. PRITT: Could I just ask a question on that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure.
MR. PRITT: Not being that good at math.
Did I hear you say that maybe it woutd be simpler just to put a number in, say such as 20 feet?
I talkcd to Barry during the break and atso to Matt about that, whether or not that was -- remember I said
I'd come back to you, whether or not that was doable. And if we had that number, that makes sense, I guess, but
Matt can tell you whether or not that's doable. If it is then we --
COMMISSIONER SCHIPFER: Well, I think, you know, when Mall showed the drawings and showed
the pass-throughs of the buildings. they were about 20 feet.
And I would use -- like to use the phrase greater than 20 feet. Becanse 20 feet is a break in the building
codes I{lr jire separation and stutr And just so that, you know, kids can have windows that operate, I'd make it
greater than 20 feet and you'd be okay.
MR. PRITT: Anyhow. I think it's okay, ifit's still doable Ii-om the architect's standpoint.
MR. POLAK: Ycah, I think that's absolutcly doabte. And I just -- the only thing I'd prei'lCe it with is that
-- and I hate to say this becausc we atways keep pushing things ofT to the SDP process. But I think one of the
other aspects that comcs into that is atso the total tength of the building, which is going to detennine -- at least at
some point tbat's going 10 determine the break. where the breaks occur. So some buildings may end up with a
recess in the building may not necessarily bc a break in the building itsetJ'.
And the reason I bring that up is when you get to the comers, some of those funny comers to get that
211-foot break. you might end up 211 tCel at the interior eould end up being much larger at the outside of the turn.
So those are design aspects that have to be, you know, fUJ111er developed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mall, one tiling you notice in Collier, we never have maximum building
lengths. So just connect those buildings.
MR. POLA!\.: Ukay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just put a walkway between them, even if nobody can walk on it. It's
one building. and Ilobody will notice your problem there.
Let's go down to the -- you have the minimum 11001' area ratio. I think itls maximum noor area ratio. We
donlt \vantto make you build ollc-and-a-qUat1er (Jcres worth ofbuiJding. You see that down on the principal uses?
You have minimum 11001' area ratio. I think that would be maximum.
MR. ANIJREA: Under Table I"~
COMMISSIONFR SCIIIFFER: Under Table 2. I lopclully you weren't on Table I with the earlier part of
this COllvcrsati{)n.
MR. ANDREA: I don't think I was.
Minimum floor area ratio.
COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: It's .25. I mean, the number's right. You cull it out as a minimum, but
that's a maximum.
MR. ANDREA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, the numbers you've given aren't near that anyway.
And then the Davis Boulevard and County !lam right-of-way, I know that you have it at 25 feet, but, you
know, again, we're back tn a, you know, tall building right up on the edge of the road. We don't want that. So did
Page 37 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 149 of 407
you over lunch -- that \Vas on both the tables. Do YOLl want to -- we can discuss that now, I guess.
MR. ANDREA: Twenty-live feet distance Irom County Barn -- Davis? Actually, it's Davis.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yeah. that's been increased.
Ct IAIRMAN STRAIN: Gentlemen -- and Bob, you shoutd know this better than anybody, you've got to
the use the mic. when you guys address -- \velL she's trying to write things down, and it's really not on the record
that way.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Arc you talking about the butTer, the landscape buffer?
COMMISSIONER SCIltFFER: No, I'm talking about how close the building can be to the right-of-way.
There's the --
MR. GOLllMElER: We pusl1cd it back. Robel1, we pushed it back from what to what')
MR. ANDREA: Wc were at 211 teet. we pushed it back to 25.
MR. (iOLDMEIER: Fine, that's tine.
COMMISSIONER SClltFFER: I'd like to push it tllnhcr. I'd like it to be a minimum of25 or equal to
the building height. So if you build -- and again. it's the actual height -- a 45-tilot tall building, you shoul.9. be 45
fcet back.
MR. GOLDMEIER: So in other words, if we have a two-story portion of an otherwise three-story
building. it would have to be the height that l'lees the -- the ponion of the building that jilees the road, whatever
height that IS,
COfvlMtSSIONFR SCIltFFER: Correct.
MR. GOl.llMEIER: And if we have a sloping root', is it taken at the downward slope of the roof or is it
taken at the crown of the roof.'
COMMISSIONU{ SClI]FITR: We're havmg a tot 01' tim. the easiest way is go up 25 teet and then go
Olle-tn-one hack and slay' below tl1(l1. And you can describe that. right'!
And here's the thing. I have no prohlem if YOll build a 10\\1 portion or it. Obviously you go back in, the
mass or building rises. That will look good. It'sjust that what if you didn't huild a low portion.
MR. (JOI.UMEIER: Okay, Sll if we e,mltave it durtng the n ifit's a sloping rollf'll the ]ow pan of the
rooC and that's what you're conccrned ahout. that's the exterior \vall :you're looking at. then that's acceptable to me
that it's the lllil1inlUl1J nr ~5 ICct or tile height urthe exterior wall closest to the roa(hvay.
COMMtSStONER SCHIFFtR Rigltt. ()r tlte huildine height. Rememher that tltat will be to the
midpoint or a 1'001". too. so--
MR. Ci()L[lMEIl:R: Midpoint llltlte rllllf
COMMISSIUNER SCIIlFtTR: Sll vllu'd Itave rollts Slicking out below it if you wanted to. It's not roofs
\\'c'rc worrilxl ~d'lllIL it's a lbt 45-1()ol high wall.
l'vIR. (i( H J )['vl L11.:R: l'ml're the architect. l'lll \lot going 10 lJuibble with your sensibilities.
COMMtSSIUNI'R SCHIFFLR: I'm done.
Un P;lgl' n
l'IIAIRMi\N S lIU\lN: We're X ami '!.
('UMMtSSIUNLR SClIIFFFR: Yes, I'm done.
CllAmMAN STRAIN: Anyhlldy else on Pages, ami ,)',
(1\orcsplllISC.)
CI JAIR\1AN STRAIN: Mr. Andrea. the qlleslilln t brougltt up e'lrlier abllut townhlluses.
MR. ANIlRI'\: Yes.
('IIAIRMAN STRAIN: If Vllll intend III make lltllse ICe simple. they have to have standards. And we
don't have standards.
MR. CiOL!lMEILR: Mr. Strain, we'll agree tll a minimnm widtlt lll'20 teet.
C 'IIAIRMAN STRAIN: Wltat about are,('
~1R. C iUL!!MEILR: Well. it's certainty nllt glling to be 7110 square teet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If y"U have a 20-t()llt wide Illt and you have a net buildabte area atier your tront
or rear or side setbacks. so your lot's going to have to have a cert,tin lllass to it in order to fit the building you
intend to put there --
Page 38 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 150 of 407
MR. GOLDMElER: Yes, the f()otprint, the tootprint--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, the t()otprim is different than the lot area. The footprint is inside the
buildable area of the lot.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, I'm then looking at this as being more or less the footprint, because the design
-- in order to confonn with the design with the open parking area that we're not going to go into the parking with a
private open space, we're going to end that somewhere short of the parking lot and short of the street.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to have a lot of easements, cross easements and stnff for yonr
owners to get to.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes, that's why I'd prefer at this point, until it's thought out more carefully, to restrict
that to the footprint. The fee simple area we'd be conveying to purchasers would be the footprint itself. And we
can always make it larger.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is that f(lOtprint area, minimum?
MR. GOLDMEIER: Matt. how deep are the buildings? Sixteen?
MR. POLAK: Total depth is about--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can come back to us later on.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes, cao we please')
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would give some time to think about it.
You agree the minimum Jlpor area ratio is maximum, right?
MR. ANDREA: Correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this site plan you have in front of us, the two MU buildings, if I'm reading
that right, the only li'ontage on Davis Boulevard is the end of that northern MU building.
MR. ANDREA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other -- there is no frontage on County Barn because of the parking?
MR. ANDREA: Well, the -- both sides will be li'ont elevations, but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you consider li'ontage?
MR. ANDREA: Well, I guess that's the delinition. We're going to oricnt the buildings towards the inside
here and have a frontage t'leade on the back side to the parking so they'll look the same fimn the front and the
back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. ANDREA: But I guess the street, the intel'llal street, it would be the frontage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that leads me to the concern that stmied the fun period of time when
we had all this cross-examination by Mr. Pritt. The issue ofintemal parking.
If you look at Page ~ under general. A, it said buildings shalt primarily ti'Ont public rights-of~ways in order
to create (l sense or place and relationship to the street.
Are )/ou dedicating -- I can't -- county won't take all those roads. they're not even to county standards. So
the pubtic lights-ol~way would probably be Davis and Collier -- or County !lam Road, right?
MR. ANDRI'A: No, I believe the intent there, t did not wnte thaI, but I believe the intent there was any
road it'd he f!nnting on would bc the inlelllal roads.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but it says public rights-ot~way.
MR. ANDREA: I read that, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your internal roads I don't believe would be allowed to be -- well, maybe --
John, can those internal roads based on thc cross-section you1ve seen, the width of the pavement and all the other
things, are they intended to be dedicated and maintained by the county'?
MR. KLAIZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welt, County Attollley's saying no. So I guess they can't be public
righls-of-way.
So John, it just got confirmed. 1'\l1y assumption 'vvas right.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's light.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, how do you then meet, under A, buildings shall Plimarily front public
rights-of-\vay in order to create a sense of place and relationship to the street'!
Page 39 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Ilem No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Pa(Je .t 51 of 407
And my consensus to that was that you were meeting it by the intention of the GMP, which said parking
areas shall be intemal to the site and be serecned Irom County 8am Road and Davis Boulevard. Because it would
tl)ree your buildings to have trontage on the streets. So A seemed to coincide with the GMP, but now you're
telling me A isn!! what you're doing.
MR. ANDREA: That was my interpretation of it. I apologize. I did not write that. The -- it's clear now,
it's public rights-of-way. I don't kno\v how to al1s\vcr that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Corby's here. Corby. you want to hetp us?
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. Real quiekty, m this instance. public rights-ol~way is a small P, public. The
public are using those roads and streets, not to intend that it was publicly owned rights-of-way by the county.
These were intended to mean not the parking lots, the toea] streets inside thc development.
C11AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. so you're Si'Ylllg that the streets within the development, all the streets, not
just the ones in tile commercial component. but all the streets arc public streets?
MR. ANIWLA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is Ihal how the eondomimum documents and the HOA documents will be
written?
MR. ANDREA: I assume so. yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Butlhey're not public rights-ot~way.
Ct IAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nol pubhe righls --
lVIR. PRITT: Let me suggest --
MR. KLATZKOW: Call it whal they are,
MR. PRITT: Jusl say streels.
MR. KLATZKt )W: ts the idea Ihatthe buildings arc prilllmily to li'onllhe intemal streets"
MR, PRITT: Streets within Ihe development. t don'l want to stal1 lighting over intemal again. But just
the streds \vilhin the sileo I think that's what the solution \vould he.
(,IIAIRMAN STRAIl'\: ()k;lv. I"hell (understand \vhere you'rc going with it. I'm not necessarily saying:
it's the right way to go, but ok,I)'.
AllY more questiolls 011 Pages .s and l)'.'
(No respollse.)
CltAIIUvlAN STRAtN: We'lllllo"l' 10 Pages III alld It. /\Ilybody have allY questions 011 -- well, it's the
same site plan we've been looking at.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFI'R: I do. Mmk.
Ct IAIRivL'\N STRAIN: Go ahead. Sir.
Ct JtvHvllSSIONER SCIIIFFER: Alld Rohert, t guess you call allswer this. You kllow. olle thing that is
missing J"rnlll this site pl;lIl is the tYPIcal Flunda alllenities, ;1 swimming pooL recreation. BalTY did mention
maybe there'll be somc reLTeali(lll in the mixed use. But l'lll sure the neighbors don't want people running across
the street using their pool.
So what kllld of stuff is g01llg to be happenll1g oil-site and why haven't we--
tv1R. li(H J)MI':itoR: \1ay I plei,se allswer Ihat'.'
The reason we didn't shnw it W;IS hecause we didn't wanl to give you a site plan showing a precise
locatiolll)f ,1 pou! ur;1 t01 lnt Hnd nol he ilhk tn Illo\e it. But wc Cully intend and will commit to have a swimming
pooL a tot lot.
If },'uu'd like, I can point out where we intend to put it hul we don't want to be saddled \vith this being the
precise localion and not hc able tll h;lve any Ik:\lbilily Illovillg: it laler.
('( lMMtSSI( lNFI< SCIIII-'FFR: But Barrv. there's" c'l\e"1. herythlllg here is tlexible to move. So that
thing could have joined 011. \Vhere do )/uu inlend to put it?
I\IR. GULlJMFILR: Wet!. just where the n ill (i'olll oCthe mixed use building that l'lees the lake where
the word is park, that's where \VC intcnd to 11ul the swilllming: pool. Because behind that within the mixed use
building. we intend to put cOllllllunity I~lcilitics ror thl' use of the community. That's where we -- instead of having
a f1-eestanding clubhouse, \ve intended to use part l)f the -- a commercial bay as the clubhouse and community
room and have tile swimming pool in li"onl or thaI.
Page 40 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 152 of 407
The reason for that location is hecause it's a nice view of the lake and because that green space can then be
isolated and fenced of I' from the -- you know, from othcrpeople entering it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that does tip a card a little bit that the mixed use is going to be
essentially what amenities would be in any other residential development. I'm not sure that's bad, but I can see that
card now.
MR. GOLDMElER: No, I think it's good. Because there is another card that would deal with the
affordable workforce clement, Are they having access to the same facilities, which is equal to or better than. And
in fact they're going to have equal to or better than.
But also we felt that the amenities for the project would play well with some retail facilities. For instance,
you put an ice cream shop or a pretzel shop, et cetera, right next to the clubhouse and by the pool, and they can sell
drinks and things like that and it would enhance the amenity. And the amenity would enhance tbe potential for
that business to tlllive.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: I'm with you. I think bringing everybody to that part of the site will
help.
MR. GOLDMEIER: And. we hii(J a tot lot back in onc of the -- you know, in part of the residential
elemcnt that we didn't show, because we -- we'll put it wherc we can put it when it--
COMMISSIONI]~ SCHIFFER: I'm worried about the pool. But, okay, thank you.
I'm done, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. MUlTay'!
COMMISSIONER MlIRRA Y: Yeah, this may be more relevant to final stages, but I'm just curious, in
tel111S of like an ice cream shop, probably close around 9:00 at night. something like that. But the use of a room
for a community, do you anticipate having restrictions for time and also loudspeakers for music and such?
MR. GOI J)MEIFR: I believe in ordcr to make it a -- if it's a condominium association, the condominium
association would want those things to happen. And if it's a rcntal apmimcnt community, then that's good
management practices.
So ycs, wc intend to have some sort of rcstrictions. What they are, I can't tell you. But I can tell you that
in communities that \\le own and operate today that we don't -- we allow patiies, private parties to take place with a
dcposit. Bul I think we have a t 0:00 limit on the hours. And they usually take place in a community room near a
pool and things like that. And yes. we intend 10 have --
COMMISSIONER MLJRRA 1': And the reason fe)J' my question was because anybody who lives above it
would be impacted by it --
MR. GOLDMEIER: Of course.
COMMISSIONER MlIRRA 1': -- that would be thc basis f'lr it.
MR. (iOLDMEIER: And Mr. Strain, would you like me to commcnt on the size of the townhouses?
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. If you have ilnow. that's great.
MR. (iOLDMEtFR: Yes. If we have a -- and I'm only talking about minimums, I'm not talking about
projected sizes. .I list minimums. And these arc basically within the conlillcs of the apartment unit, not utilizing the
::\Ccess or ha\l\vays outside oeit.
But if we !lClve a minimulll 1 O-Coot \vide unit <llld it's a to\vnhouse, we would then envision to have two
townhouses back-to-back, one fi:lcing the front of the building, onel~lCing the rear of' the building, and to have a
depth that would be no less than 30 teet, because then we'd have a minimum 1,200 square toot size townhouse.
CIIAIRMAN STRAtN: Your minimum width is 20 feet, as you said earlier.
MR. GOLLlMEIER: Twenty I'cet. And thell we'd have a minimum depth of30 feet. And that would give
us (JOO feet on two floors or Ininilllum size orlllat unit would be 1,2()() square feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had an issue on this come up, and I think it was Heritage Bay, and I think it
was Bruce Anderson who brought it fonvard. And they had to change their platting to accommodate the new
condo laws. Actually, to get away frolll [helll. Tiley still wantcd to retain the ability to build a building like they
had hulIt. But it was a townhouse huilding. Instead of being a condominium townhouse they wanted to do a fee
simple townhl)Use.
And they had to go through extensive gyrations with the lol lines to make them work in a manner that
Page 41 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
IlgencJa Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 153 of 407
would work within the cOlllmunity to accommodate the parking, the roads, the common areas. I guess when you
don't have a condo association, you approach those common elements differently through an BOA.
I don't know how you would m"ke the fee simple happen on this plan, and I'm curious as to how you
would do it.
MR. GOLDMEIER: By the way, I agree with you. We're not t()feseeing doing fee simple on the plan.
You brought up the question, if we were to do lee simple, how would we do it. What we were looking at w"s a
two-story condominium unit which \ve would call a townhouse unit. but it vvould not necessarily be a fee simple
townhouse. And you had asked \vhat minimum lot size we'd look at.
But I think given the design, this \vorks hettcr as a condominiumto\vnhouse than it does as a fee simple
lo\vnhousc, which was the intent from the beginning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But h,,"e you allempted to do allY condominiums under the new rules
that h,JVC gone into place thai al the time we heard \vcre so hl)rrihle it)!' the process of a condominium?
MR. CiOLDMEJER: No, hut we\'e just gotten approvals of two large traditional neighborhood design
developments which lll;:lybe Matt can commcnt 011. One is about. well. it's LOOO units hut broken down into
several phases. and the other is about 2.000 ullits and broken (\O\Vll illtn several phases. And we've just about
made it through most of our approvals on those processes. And they do !cxcsee having condominium townhouse
units ralller tllall fee simple townhouse units.
Alld 011 another projecl Ihal )\/latl's also Ihe architect 011, a (,(Ill-unit project, we designed the project
difTcrently' to bl.: fee simple. And \~.'C lwd to deal with public opell space and privatc open space requirements,
\\'hich were very difficult. And I don't foresee this type orplall being able to meet. I agree with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oby. Understand.
Mr. Murray. did you have a n did you already ask that?
( 'OMMISSIONIR MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a t'Jtlnw-up tn Tahle 2, I shnuld hale "sked -- I've got to step baek here. The
issue that Brad hrnu!!hl up is re1c\'<lIlt bccmlse the tahle n:lCrellccs a tract. and the standards are in relationship to a
tract. Hut if you put ;1 tract line ill. havl: you considered how that works with the setback requirements that you
have that arc supposed to be internal to the site? The minilllum setbacks.
Do they line up with YOllr tract lines'.' II,nT YOll studied that or !lot, based on the fact we just asked you
about the tr;lCt.
MR. /lNDRE/I: lhale Ilot studied that. IHl.
C1I/1tRMAN STR/lIN: So vou dOIl't kllow how those st'lIldards lIlay be "Ireeted by that.
MR. /lND"!';\: No. sir.
('I IAIRM/\:\ STRAIN: ,\lso. on Tahle.2 Y'ou h(l\T ,I colulllll for townhouse. But iryou go to your list of
uses in the cOllllllercial component. the f\1U cOmptlllen1. y'ou did lisl lllLllti-j~lI11i]y under A-I. but you did not list
tmvnhouses ill ;1 1ll<llllllT that like YOll did under tIll' r,ermittcd uses LInder residential. So even though you have
standards 1'01' it. it doesn't see III to he a permitted lIse.
\Vas that ;In OllllSSIlH}. or did you iW\"l' some wa)' 01'--
1\1R. ANDRFi\: Thallllllst he --lh,lt\ ,111 omission. \VI1,11 page me YOll on?
C1IAIRM/lN STR/lIN: tr'youlo()k at Vl>ur stalldards. table 2. you see a eolullln ((lr townhouses. That's
lindeI' your MlJ tract.
MtC /lNDRE/I: Yes.
('ll/ltRM/\N STR/lIN: It you gOIl> Pa~e 2 of t" ullder vour permilled uses t,Jr the MU tract, you don't
have tovv'nhouses t\1,11 I call see listed there. Su you rcally couldn't do t()\vnhouses. even though you have
develoPlllent standmds It)r thelll.
MR. ANDREA: 'Y"ou arc correct. rllat was ,111 omission.
CI tAIRMAN STRAtN: Okay. So you would add that to the perlllittecl uses, right?
MR. ANDRE/I: Yes
('IIAIRM/lN STRAIN: ()kay. We're dOlle with Page t t.
And by the \vay. Br,ld's ljUcstinll ahl)ut 1h(: <llllellities. we do normally' see the amenities because they are a
compatibility issue in relationship to IlOise. t!lan: and other things that happen around those.
Page 42 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 CCPC
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 154 of 407
They are generally on the site plans that we review. I understand your reasoning, but that's tbe same
reasoning everybody else has for not wanting them there, but they are always there.
You may want to consider that that needs to be changed. And we'll certainly bring it up during the
stipulation phase.
MR. GOLDMEIER: We had thcm on a site plan, we took them off We can show you that now or put
them back later.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the extel11al relationships are dictated by the compatibility. And those
facilities gencrate more noise than a standard standalone residential. So if you're going to have them it's good to
know where so you can tell the public where to expect that to be.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Would you like to see them now? Because you have--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to see them for our record document, so we just have to bring it
up when welre more on a record document.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, this is digressing~ little bit, but I missed this as a question earlier.
I think, Robert, you can answer this. .
Has to do with Page 5 and it has to do with water managemcnt structures. And in part it says, the
stonnwater will be drained back into tlie stonnwater management lake as drawdown occurs through the control
structure. But it talks about a one and one-half inches of exceed, the excess of rain.
What means do we have? Arc we going to have a weir, are we going to have some kind of a triggering?
MR. ANDREA: My understanding of the systcm, and I'm not an cngineer, but my understanding of the
system is that there would be a weir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There would be a weir.
MR. ANDREA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Tliat's it. tliank you. That satisfies that.
Pages 12 and 13, anybody have any questions on those two pages?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need some clarification ti'Oln transportation.
Good afternoon. J()hn.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good atiel11oon, Commissioncr Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit E, 1 .F, it talks about CO's and the timing. It has to bc after substantial
completion of Santa Barbara Boulevard extension to Rattlesnake Hammock Road and sutTieient capacity becomes
available on County Ham Road.
VvTe know that Sanla Barbara's 110\\1 opeJl.
MR.I'ODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir.
CtlA1RMAN STRAIN: Ilow wnuld ynu knn\\' whether or not there was sufficient capacity available?
You have to do a test I would assul1le?
MR. I'UUCZI'RW1NSK Y: Yes, we would have to measure that With our usual quarterly counts, which
have not been perf0I111Cd on Santa Barbara. It just opened.
CHAtRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So at whatever point if they were to go in illr CO's, they would have to
have a verification that that capacity was available.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your counts would have to he done by that point.
MR. PUDC1ERW1NSKY: Yes. sir.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Or ifnot. they would have to do them
MR.I'ODCZERWINSKY: This is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On G-2.H, it talks ahout a contribution of $110,000. And that number is
mysteriously similar to the numher on 1-1l of $t to.OOO. But in my prior conversation with you, I'm Gnding out
those are not the same contribution. It's t\vo contributions of ] 10,000.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: This is correct. The 110,000 that is hsted in number transportation l-B on
Exhibit E is the first donation of 110,000, regardtess of the limc of CO.
Page 43 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 155 of 407
The one that you notice in, iilt1her down in (i-2B, that 110,000 is for two additional intersections, if they
choose to move fon.\'ard prior to the County Barn improvements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay I just wanted to make sure the record was clear and everybody
understood it was two. Because when I first read it. I was confused, I thought it was talking about the same one on
I-B.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, two separate issues,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Anybody else have any questions on 12 and 137
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Transportation's going to come back up during stan?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's been sitting back there allmoming waiting 1(11' us to ask questions, so he
can come up as often as you'd like.
COMMISSIONER SCI IIEFER: I could ask him a question now,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, you got a questiolt')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Altd the questiolt is Olt bus access to this site, Are there routes that go
by this? Is there 811Y provision being madc IClf a bus slop or ,anything like that?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: There is ItO p!'llvisionl()r the bus stop in the PUD, I don't recall right ofTlhe
lop oemy head whether or not lhis is 011 olle of our existing routes. I could consult my handy foldout map and see
ifit is. Sp ij"YOll wouldn't mind, fin go t~lke a Ipok at that and I'll come back,
COMMISSIONER SCI I1FFFR: SlIre, lha!'!! wl'rk, They have them Ollt in the hall, I think,
MR. PODCZER\VINSKY: rill slIre thev do. Thank vou,
- ,
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: (lkay_ we'll n1<)\'e on to Pages 14 and 15. Docs anybody have any questions on
Pages 14 alld IS?
(No response,)
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 14, Mr. Wiley, I know you're here to address this issue, Item 2-13 says
the pn~iect site is an CXpl1l1cl' l)j" stlmll\Vater durin!,! (] I {)O-]/Car threc~day event and compensating storage is not
l'c<.]uired.
^nd of course I I(HIlH.i in here \vhere I thought \ve were -- they \vere allowing us to bring water in ofT of
the road impnwemcnts. ^lld I'm just wlmuering iJ'they"re an e.xp0I1er how they can be an importer.
MR, WILEY: Oby, you're really talking two separate issues. And I am Robert Wiley with the Land
Devell)pl11cnt Services Dcp<111nlelll,
The importer/exporter issue deals with your tl)tal water volume that is available to he stored upon the
property 1hml the rainbll event. Doesn't relled the hringing in or o!f-site water from Davis Boulevard into it.
So you go through the lllathclllatiGd L'aleulalio!ls 10 lktcrlllinc the alllount of\\'ater that is produced by the
rainndl evcnt liver tile property. and then ynu go Ih)J}l the water table that \vill be resulting nble to stand 011 it
which in tliat particular locatioJl was pn:tly well eOllllrmcd \\.'hcn we h,ld Tropical S101111 .Jerry, which \vas almost a
perfect curve l()r the I ()(l-ycar l'vcnt,
BCG1USC there's less \\'ater .1hlc to stand Oil tlll' propel1y and It actually runs ollto the south, that means the
property is.lll exporter, So ,111 he is then at tlwt point doing is putting his IOU-year berm up so all of his discharge
is contained and goes out at ,1 Cl)lltrolled rate through the discharge structurc.
That is dilrercllL though. thall tIll' w.lter tl1<lt yiOLl \vOldd wallt to COlllC onto the site from Davis Boulevard.
That is included within the volume stored on the property. Sl) while he is hringing water through the site from
oIT-site. the illlporter/'exporter is a calculation you go through 1'01' the storage available on the site pre-development
versus post-development. It's t\\'o difkrcnt SCp<lr<1tc isslles,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understand thaI. Although il eel1ainly doesn't make it less confusing,
iv1R. \VILE)': Can I try to m,lkL' it more enllJ'using?
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: So he can't hold all the water on the site, so he's an exporter.
!'viR. WILLY: Yes, sir.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: But beC<luse he can't hold it all onllIe site we're going to give himl1lorc from an
on:'site mad,
MR. \VILEY: That isjust simply the pass~through that IS coming onto him right now. That does not affect
Page 44 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 156 of 407
the total volume storage on his site. And by the conditions within his approvals, he is addressing how he will
handle that water from Davis Boulevard coming through, handling the volume but not providing water quality
treatment for it
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would he be allowed to discharge below the existing high water level?
MR, WILEY: Bclow the existing wcl season water table, no. Below the peak JOO-year storm elevation,
yes, That is not -- his control elevation is the wet season water table basis,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On item 6-2 it says stomlwater shall not be discharged below the existing
seasonal high water leveL What is the value of that statement?
MR, WILEY: Tbat is your wet season water table, sir,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is that a given or is that something that they could do ifit wasn't written in
here not to do?
MR. WILEY: Well, it's written in there to make sure everyone is aware of it so that we don't get
ovcrdrainage. But as they go through the permitting process with the county and with the Water Management
District, it would be a design criteria that is being met
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, it is a design criteria; is that correct?
MR. WILEY: That is correct, sir,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Are there other design criterias in the South Florida Management District
rules?
MR. WILEY: There's a whole book full of them, sir,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right If we're going to put one hcre, why don't we put the entire book here?
MR. WILEY: Well, the issue hcrc was to bring up the point of what indeed is the wet season water table
issue and the storage of water on-site so that it does not come into a drainage situation as it COlmects up to the
County flam Road ditch, which is proposed to be a pm1 of the improvement of County Bam Road, which is all a
pmi or the Lely Area Stort11\vater Improvement Project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all that's a requirement of the design criteria as permitted through South
Florida Water Management District that they have to adhere to~ is that right?
MR. WILEY: It would be included as pal1 of review, ycs, sir,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,
Mr, MUlTay?
COMMISSIONER MlIRRA Y: Yeah, that brings me back to that one-and-a-haIf inches. That--
presumably tbcn that was the height of the IOO-year stOllll i,x the water thcn to go through a weir and down, or
over the weir?
MR, WILEY: The one-and-a-half inches is your water qualify treatment voIumc. That really is not
indicative ortlle stage of tile water. That is a total volume that must be pre-treated before it's allowed to go out of
the lake system and into the preserve.
The reverse, as you get the drawdown as the end 01' the stOll!l posses, it will thell flow out of the preserve
back into the lake system, out the control structure and discharge from the property.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I've becn concc111ed, having read that water would be dischargcd
into the preserve, and I'm -- I don't know what the cunent -- I didn't read that f~lr into the document to see whether
or not cer1ain exotics were there and/or appropriate plantings.
But if' it's going to be wet during the hydroperiod that we typically havc, do we know whether or !lot that
property is really wet propel1y, or is -- I mean, it's a preserve but it's not. It's a water containment vessel really, or
it's a transporter of water.
\\;'hat JIm trying to find out from you, maybe you're the \\Tnng person, is this preserve going to he wet
most oftbe time thaI iCs the wet season?
MR, WILEY: Probably would not be inundated, Would the soil be rather saturated? Probably so, based
upon the control elevations they arc looking at
But it would not be -- I would say it would not necessarily be inundated at alltimcs, except during the
periods for Sh0l1 durations I(lllowing the st01111 when it will stage up and then go back to the bleed-down process,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we're really no! having a preserve there, we're having a what, maybe a
Page 45 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 157 of 407
sOli of semi wet/dry \-vatcr retention? It's not rcc:dly (-1 preserve thell.
MR, WILEY: J would not say that. A preserve is leaving the 118tural vegetation there, SiL
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I appreciate that.
MR, WILEY: It doesn't say whether it's wet or dry, The vegetation that is there under its existing
condition is used to being vcry wet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's thc answer I'm looking f()L So in other words, we're not
modifying, Good, thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robel1, one last question, at least li'om me, Would the site plans have to
demonstrate that the hydrology' of the preserve areas arc maintained or enhanced?
MR, WILEY: They will have to do that. sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a requirelllelll oi'perlllittiltg'-'
MR, WILEY: Yes, sir, It is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 'I'ha!lk you. /\ppreciate it.
Ally'body else ]nl\'c any questions'!
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tlwnks, Robcrt.
My suggestion would be that item six on Page 15 be omiltcd. Itls issues already -- requirements of all the
design criteria that they have to go through and the review or the SlJP1s hy the EAC serves no purpose. So Illl
make that \vhen \\it' get to stipulations.
The next two pages are the entry feature pages. Anybody have allY questions from those?
COMMISSIONER I'v1URRA Y: I may have.
l'IIAIRMAJ\ STRAIN: Mr. Murray"
COIVIMISSIONER MURRAY: I've been curious about the master plan, And ii'you look -- looking at the
lllastlT plan and y'ou see -- I\'c got to jig-lire out how 10 ch:scrihe this no\v. The buildings, some of the buildings,
there arc areas that seem to be extensions urthe buildings or concrete or hushes or parking. \Vhat are they?
Can you ligure out what rill trying to ask, sir?
f\ilR. ANDREA: I'IllIWI quite sure \\'here you're --
COMivlISSIONER MLRR;\ Y: Wd!. ii'\()u g" (l\er to vour master plan, Iryou go to the master plan, I'll
gUide }'Oll.
!'vIR. ANDREA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER I'v1URRA Y: Yealt, go tothe next buildlllg, Whoops, no, no, next building, See, now,
go up a little higher. little higher. TOll high. l'Ollll' do\vll a little. Thcre ~!t1U go, almost there. Almost there. Now
a little below that. Right there.
\Vhat (]rc those? Those arc arollnd the huildings at various locations. Uo they extend out from \vhateyer,
either the building ronlprill\ 01'--
I'v1R, ANDREA: Tllese Itere"
COI'v1MISSI! )NU, MURRAY: Yes, Sir, th(lSe ilems,
MR, ANDREA: I beheve those arc -- they lllay be curbs because the parallel parking along the roads and
planting ..lrcas.
COMVIISS!OJ\U, MURR;\ Y: Curbs" Bv scale, thev're big curbs.
I'v1R, ANDRE/\: I'd ask Brian Ill'i ,ony, hut Ite is not Itere. lie put those in as a design feature to -- they're
like little bump-ollts here. /\nd I believc he lllean! Cor those areas to bc planted. There will he parallel parking
there,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought tltey lllight Itave been rubher lell' bumper ears. I wasn't sure,
MR. POLAK: \\,'ha1 you're seeing there is that \Vll..lt \ve carved uut there were the parallel parking spaces.
And then what we're delineating is where it bumps hack in is \vherc you're going to get three or f()ur cars will be
able t() park. ^llll then it \vill be ~I bump-ullt. which could he a landscaped island. It would most likely be curbed
with. you know, street un OIlC side, ,I curb and grecn, \vhether it IS grass or planting. Some instances it could be
concrete as part of tile sidewalk.
But the idea orwh,lt \vc're showing thcre is the bump-outs, And thatls the same thing we1re showing in the
Page 46 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 158 of 407
parking lots too, where those are sort of islands,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the absence of that means there's parking?
MR, POLAK: Correct
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, baek to this plan for a minute, The R tracts that show here, what is
the length of these tracts?
MR. ANDREA: The buildings themselves? I don't know what the exact length of the building was. We
put those in as building f(lOtprints to show the relationship to the roads and parking areas, They were not meant to
be -- although they are scaled f()r the drawing to fit in thcre, they're not dimensionalized here on the master plan.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I know the other drawing that was shown earlier breaks up these buildings,
these areas into smaller buildings, But there isn't any requirement, actually, in here that you break them up in that
manner.
I'v1R, ANDREA: Correct
COMMISSIONER CARON: So they could be as long as whatever is being shown here,
MR. ANDREA: No--
COMMISSIONER CARON: They could be one long continuous building, as long as it went in and out
or up and dO\Vll, you know, had some--
MR. ANDREA: I believe there are stipulations in the subdistrict about the buildings, that they can't be
long buildings like that
IfYOll give me just a minute here, I will--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, if you could read that into the record, I'd appreciate it
MR. CiOU1MEIER: While he's lookiug, wc do not intend to build barTaeks, I think having these long
buildings is unattractive. And we -- and thaI's one of the rcasons we provided you with a colored mark-up of the
site plan, because we were -- \ve were concerned that this didn't look -- it didn!t look right, nor would we want to
build it like that ThaI's why you have a eolorcd site plan that Matt had presented,
COMMISSIONI'R CARON: Good, I was just looking fi,l' some language to back up your statements,
because I think you're right, I don't think you would sell them here, But on the other hand, thaI's not stopped
people in the past, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but this should have been the opPol1unity in which you put your best
design forward, not your \\/orst.
MR, GOLDMEIER: Well, we have, but it's dark. You see these--
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but see, the one that was put I(lrward is the document thaI's in our packet,
because that \vou]d be the record. And it \vould have lxx:n nicer to have one reflecting what you show in this plan.
I'v1R, (jOLDMEIER: There was some reluctance to substitute the broken up oue -- the one that you see in
your packet had gone all the way through the process. and we were reluctant to pulJ it and start all over again with
a new one. So that's why \VC presented you \\llth a colored one breaking the buildings up as we intend to do.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You can just create some language, Thank you,
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,
MR. ANDREA: I did check, There is no language in the subdistrict
COMMISSIONER CARON: tiuess what? I've already checked that
MR, ANDREA: I apologize, I thought there was in there,
CIlAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that brings us to the end of the PUD document The last item is Exhibit
G, is some street cuts. Anybody have any questions from those?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One comment You don't have where these sections fall on your site plan, You
provided us with the two sections. I was just curious as to where Band C, for example, tall. You've got multiple
occasions \vhere you ha\'c buildings across JI'0111 one another.
COMMISSIONER SCIIlFFI'R: If you can see, Mark, B is where the mixed use is, So it would be
looking south from that circle area.
Page 47 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
P,gencJa Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 159 of 407
CIIAIRM;\N STRAIN: (lkay. so that's where that -- ,md then the other ones would be--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFI;R: And the rest of them's (sic) are all C, except for a few A's, where--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've already gone over the GMP section,.
Is there any' other questions from tile rest of the packet that we received before we go into a staff report?
Anybody'!
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Pritt'!
MR. PRITT: Yes, Mr. Chainnan, would it make sense to submit this document that we've been showing
you all day" And I'd be glad to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which document'!
MR, PRITT: This is the conceptual site plan, the one that's clllored in,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. it may make sense bel()re the day's over. I think you may want to hold off,
because that 111<:\)' SOhT one questitm, hut it still brings up man:y others, okay? Thank you.
SlaITrcpOI11l()\V.
MS. DESELEM: Good aflcrnoon, For the record, Kay Deselem with Zoning,
You do have sevcral documents that were submitted by stalf There was a supplemental staff report last
revised 8/'9/10. And along wilh the other inf,xmation, YOLl received the original staff report again, as there arc
several new people nn the Pblllling C\lmmissiotl that \vcrc Ilt't ()Jl at that time. So that way you have all the
back-liP documentation.
\\'ith this and tile extensivc '-I1l;liy.'sis and discussions y'ou'vc already had, on Page 2 of the supplemental
stalf repol1 y()U can see tIle (lrigillal starr rec()Ill111cndation. And \ve have noted at the bottom of that portion that
thuse stipulatiuns ;:Ire no longer needed, those issues have been addressed or gone aW(ly entirely hecause of
changes to the plan and the master plan and the pun document.
\Ve did provide to you and you have discussed the Cirmvth rvlanagcmcnt Plan analysis (bted June 30. And
staff has summarized the rour nci~hborhood information meetings that have oeeul1nl So you have an idea of
what's been discussed to this point. And of course I've becll ItJr\v,lrding c-mail messagcs to you as I gct thcm from
the neigbbors.
And st,-lfTis recllmmcnding that this petition be approved \vith the pun document as it may be amended,
helieving that the project as rel1ectcd i1l1hc memo or June .10th is consistent \vith the Cirowth Management Plan.
The original starr report has the findings. both re70ne and PUD findings, to slIpp0l1 the recommendation
or apprnv;lI.
/\nd irYOll have any qucstions, I'd be h;IPPY 10 address the111.
\Ve also hm'e. ,1S Y'Oll knuw, Corhy, David \\leeks. John Podl".. Robert \\'ilc)-" and SUlllmer /\raque here as
staffmcmbers, and ofcollrsC' Ra)' can jump in irnced he.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aud Nick, too, I wuuld hope, ri~ht')
MS, DESU,EM: Ifhe's I1cre. Oh. yes.11c is I1cre, Yes, Nick.
Anybody else UIll.1ust n
CII/\IRI'vIAN STRAIN: I Ie has to be "otieed, so I just \\'a"t to make sure he's "utieed,
(", ahead, Mr. SchilTCl,
COMVllSSitlNER SCIIIFfTR: Kay, wi", will be rel'icwll1g II1c SDP tu see if this makes a traditional
neighborhood or follows the COllllllunity ('Iwracter Plan?
f\,/lS. DI:SELI::r'vl: I Iwvc no idea. It would he assigned when it Cllllles in based on what staff we may have
at that tillle.
Ct JMM ISSI( lNER STRAIN: I )ues that ~i\e vou a warm and IlIZZy'!
]\/lS. DESELI:!'vl: I'm son)', 11llcan \ve don't know. It will be assigned when it comes in. I have no idea,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, who arc the potential peuple'> There's not that many,
obviously. So it shouldn't be hard -- I mcan, Jamie French isn't going to do it. is he?
MR, BELLOWS: For the reeurd, Ray Bellows, I'm the Zuning Section Manager.
\Ve arc in the pwu:ss of" hiring a n:plaeelllent fix Ashlej-' Casel1a, who would have been one of those
rcvic\ving site development plans. \V'c still hmT Mike S;:nvyer. And I still will be able to assign SOP's to the
Page 48 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 160 of 407
principal planners slIch as Kay as the case and workload warrants.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the background in planning and all that will be there, Ray? That
willbe--
MR, BELLOWS: We coordinate between the zoning staff and the staff that review the site development
plans,
MS, DESELEM: Ray and I as well as the County Attomey's Of1iee and any of the other people that I
mentioned would be readily available and willing to help if there are questions come up,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions ofstatf?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did anybody from housing happen to come today?
MS, DESELEM: No, they did not And I didn't invite them because I didn't know that it would be an
Issue.
We can request Frank Ramsey come if you have questions that would best be addressed by Frank
Ramsey, who is the Housing Mamikcr.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, What studies did we utilize to understand the need for the affordable
housing on this project?
M S, DESELEM: I don't know, I don't know that there was a study done, If it was, it was probably done
at the time of the Growth Management Plan amendment David Weeks may know,
And at that time we had different housing people on staff than we do now, I think Connac Giblin might
have been the staff person at that time,
MR. GOLDMEIER: Can I answer that, please, Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. you can cel1ainIy liy,
MK GOLDMEIER: None, Because it came Ii-ol11 the dais spontaneously as a condition for our approval.
Cl IA)RMAN STRAIN: And what year was that approximately: do you know?
MR, GOLDMEIER: 2004','
l'vI R, PRITT: I believe it was June of 2005,
MS, DESELEM: I believe 2005,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you,
David Vi eeks. if YOll could for a moment.
David, in 2005 wltcn the demand was made to include al1C,rdabIe housing in this project, what studies had
the county done to understand the loeational criteria of all the affordable housing in Collier County?
Or was there a study that you kno\v \vas relied upon when this demand was made?
MR, WEEKS: None to my knowledge. Would substantiate what Mr. Goldmeier stated and that was that
it was never pm1 of the applicant's petition to have all alTordablc housing component. The board of County
Commissioners at the adoption hearing raised that issue and asked for those units to be included.
CHAIRMAN SI RAIN: Okay, So Without a reliablc study, weJust demanded attordabIe housing,
And the reasonllwt's imp0l1ant is because we have a policy in our I10using Element that says the county
shall seek to distribute art(lrdable workf(lree housing equitably throughout the county,
Thcre also is a Florida Statute, 16331 77,6.F.LG that says that counties will avoid the concentration of
nJTordable hOllsing units only in specific areas or the jurisdiction.
Now, the intcntion of thc statute seems to imply that we're supposed to at least know where the
concentrmion of art(,rdable housing is and would try to avoid those concentrations, But yet I find we had no
evidence to slIpp0l1 a demand of affordable housing because, as acknowledged, there was no study to tell us if
there was a concentration here or a mile away or 20 miles away or anything o1'tl1at nature.
MR. WEEKS: Well, specific to this petition, to the petition to establish the subdistrict where this property
lies, there was no study, I believe tliat the county had done some type of alfordable housing study,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I agree with you, Yeah, our EAR is based on a knowledge of a eel1ain
quantity of units. And \ve just glJt done discussing that last week.
But that doesn't seem -- by having an overall quantity knowledge does not seem to address the stipulation
Page 49 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
i\genda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 161 of 407
that we will try to distribute equitably throughout the county. And therein lies my concern with the requirement
that this is a -- I()r the allllrdable housing, It seems to be there's an inconsistency intcmally between the
rcquin.::mcnt that this project has had put on it versus the Ilousing Element 1.4 to more or less show that we1ve
distributed as equitably as we can see, So -- and tlwt's kind of where I'm going with the affordable housing issue,
so --
MR. WEEKS: I would submit to you, Commissioners, that the housing policy that you've referenced uses
broad terms. Equitably distributed means what? Does it mean by Commission district, does it mean by planning
community'> What geography arc we relying upon to say that the housing has been distributed equitably?
I can tell you one specific instance, probably 10 years or more ago in the North Naples area, on the west
side: of Airp011 Pulling Road. And a rezone petition was submitted for an alTordable housing project which was
adjacent to an existing afrordable housing project. And that petition was either denied or there was such
opposition that it was \\rithdrawn.
The st.:lted concern was that vcry policy that you made n:lcrence to, that this was not an equitable
distribution, These affordable housing projects should not bc clustered, they should be spread ouL
[Jut exactly \vhat do \ve mean by' equitable distrihution? It's not a defined -- once again, it's a term that's
not defined. It's up to the discretion ultimately of this body and the County Commissioners in considering
petitions that propose at1(xdable hOLlsing.
CHAIR\1AN STRAIN: And I would thiltk that our GMP relics upon its creation or part of its intention
just on the basis ('I' Florida Statute.
MR, WHKS: Cet1ainlv,
(,I-IAIR~L\N STRAIN: And the statule is more speeilie than our GMP, It says avoid the concentration
ofafj(xdable housing units only in specific areas ofthcjurisdietion.
Lacking proof that we've done that. I'm just wondering IliJW we can make [I demand that we have. And
that's just ,I st8tClllCllL
MR, \\TI;KS: Sure. And I'll -- rathcr than eommcnt fut1her--
CI--IAIIU~lA1\: STR^IN: "y'ilu'rc 110t going to gel thl' last word. so --
f\IR. V\il~FKS: I \\'(mld specillc,dly note th;lt the requirement lor affixdable housing, whether it is
desirable or undcsi,'ab1c, is tlIl'rc. Till' <. 'ounty ('o!l1lllissioll put that ill the subdistrict. And if you want to say it
this way. \\'c're sluck with it. Unless and until it gct:-; rCllloVl:(L it is ,I requirement for this site.
CI L\IRMAN STRAIN: But Ihe reljuirement "Iso I"" to have valid reasons f(lr it to be there, And I
believe that the reasoning tllat \\'as established \V,IS not provcn. So tllaCs where I'm coming J)'0111. But thank you.
AllY (llher queS!illllS or county st;:llr?
f\"ls. Caron'.)
COMMISSIONLR CARON:
count)' is ulldcl1;lkillg an ;lllalysis or
,lppro\'ed. wllne -- is thai --
MR. CASALANULiIUA: CO!llIllISSloncr. that's correct. I he l)()ard approved staff to go fOIl,\"ard and
look at <l 01lC-ye;1l' analysis of not only ;lppnwed units that ,l1"C hy contract decmcd affordable housing but those
that mcet the lll,lrkct r<:ltc as \\'e1l throLl.\!hoLlt the county. It's going to be a snapshot inlimc. But at least wc)l1 do
that, and that's supposed to Ctl!llC up this year.
COI\1MISSIO~I-R CAF( IN: ,\11 right. My Illllo,,-up then is d" vou know when this year'!
~IR. C!~SAI';\N(;UIf)A: Withiu the ve"r. I should sav wilhin thc 12-month period, They've
commissioned to do it ,1S pa]1 of that report to come hack to the Bnard. And we're supposed to do the first query
through the Propeliy Appraiser and thcll \'.'c'l1 havc a better lCd !{)r how long it will take us.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
MR, CASALAN,iUIDA: You're welcome.
C1IAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody I",,,e any questions?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SClIIFFLR: Just" eomllleut on "f1lll'llable housing,
I ;lgrec with the speech B.IIT}' gave. (mean. these arc worktiJrcc housing, these arc doctors -- I mean. not
I his would he l{)\'
all ()f thc county'
Nick. It's Ill).' undcrstanding that stalf or someone in the
and where our affordable housing is. where it's been
Page 50 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 162 of 407
doctors, these are nurses and policemen and young professionals and people starting out. I mean, this is something
I think he's right, they're going to be small one-bedroom. This isn't families with thousands of kids running
around, These are, you know, units that no one's ever really built. I know back then it may have sounded trendy,
but, you know, the concept of building units on top of commercial was something we wanted to try, was
something we wanted to do, and we haven't. So this project, whether it was a knee-jerk reaction, has it and I think
we should pursue it.
CHAIRMAN STIWN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Kay.
Ray, we'll start the public speakers,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, I'm sorry, let me get the bus stop situation,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay, Commissioncr Schiffer, John Podezerwinsky, Transportation
Planning, for the record. ._u
I did go downstairs and grab a nice elcan map I()I' us, This is our most cun'ent version of the bus route
map, And as you can see, County Ham is shown on here, And it shows a yellow roule and a blue route,
The blue route is the ImmokaIee circulator that comes down to the govemment center. And the yellow
route, I think it was referred to as the Pine Ridge Medical Center? I'll take a look. Apologies, Physicians Regional
Medical Center circulator.
So both routes go past that. And no, there are not currently any stops at that location, I did check with
Ms, Michele Amok!, who is our ATM Dircctor, when she was here a little bit ago, She would not be opposed to
having a stop located at this location. although they haven't requested one 111 the PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, Hut I've never heard you request one, So it would be your
recolllmendation tl1<1t maybe we bring the bus into this location, put something close to that ice cream parlor and
let it go back out. or --
MR. P()[)CZER WINSK Y: To bring it inside the site I think probably opens up some issues with the
right-of-way casements that we haven't addressed yet. But to have a stop at this location in the public right-of-way
is -- we don't have any opposition to it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's something you would do on your own anyway without any
support II'omthis developer')
MR, PODCZERWINSKY: I can't speak to that. Whcther or not it would be brought into a capital
program in t]ll: future. I don't k11()\\'. And I don't have an answer for that one yet. I would defer to Ms. Amald for
that. And here she is,
(Speakcr was duly sworn,)
MS, ARNOLD: For the record, Michele Arnold, Collier Area Transit Director, or Altemative
TranspOItation Mode Director.
Vv'e donlt have a route lilaCs cUITcnliy on that roadvv'ay. {'he question was posed to me whether or not in
the Illture we had a route, whether a stop within that vicinity would be wan-anted, And there are several atlraetors
along that roadway, I f in the Illture we do have" route that runs along County l3arn Road, we would be preferably
stopping in the right-of-\vay or in a turn-off area \vhcre ills safe 1'01' pcdestrians to load and unload the bus, but not
10 go inside a palticular development.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks, I'm done with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron')
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wcll, I was just going to say, I may not be correct, but did we not approve
some sort of bus stop \vith the approvals at Sant:.l Barbara? /\111 Ijust -- sometimes I make these things up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Ijust don't remember.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds good,
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because as I recall, that's a mixed use development as well. And for some
rcason J thought that, and it cCl1ainly seems a more logicll place as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't recall, I know the project but I don't remember what we did on the bus
Page 51 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 163 of 407
Issue.
MS, ARNOLD: Is that Santa Barba,," and County Balll Road?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Santa Barba,," and Davis.
MS, ARNOLD: Santa Barbara and Davis,
\V c d()J1't have anything that I'm aware or that was approved with that particular project. But we currently
run along Davis Boulevard, so -- and we prnhably are stopping within that close vicinity to that particular
shopping center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J'hank you.
Any'hody else have any questions of county statY bet(xc we go to public hearing? Actually, we're in the
public hearing, before we go to public speakers.
MR, BELLOWS: Mr. Strain, Corby Schmidl has something he would like to add to the record before we
go to public.
CIIAIRMA,N STRAIN: He'sjusl carrying on David's !lag ilcre or what')
MR, SCHM 11)1': Just wanted to make sure that it gotmcntioned and was included in the record,
Pm1 of stalTs recolllmendation had to do with the developer cOlllmitments, item 4-8. I believe that's on
Pages 14 and 15 of 18 or your documents.
And staff highlighted (] concern that the language may not provide the cCI1ainty necessary with the use of
plmlses likes enter into an agreement and this agreement shall he due prior to the issuance of the first building
permit so that it clearly' indicates tile approval <lIld completion or sllch (lIt agrcement will he required in order to be
issued the first building permit.
And wc suggest in our stall rep0l1 thai you may' \vish tOlllodi(y that language to provide that clarity.
CII;\IRM/\N STRAIN: Okay, So nole,!, Corhy, We'll eet1ainly discuss it during stipulations,
MR, SCI IMlIJ I: Second item, and last one I,)r me as well. just" reminder, we have yet to address the
additional butTering where parking lots arc nearly adjacent to rights-of-w,I)/.
CH:\IIUvI/\N STRAIN: We'll cetto thai too.
MR, SCIIMIDT: Thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (iuaranteed.
Ok,))', J{,IY, !lO\\,. public speakers. Firsl (If all. if YOll ",,'cren'l s\\'om in earlier, please let us know bef<xe
you speak so the COllrt n:pol1er can do that.
\V'l' ,Isk that Yl)ll II"Y' (0 limit your discussion 10 tlm:e minutes. \V'e have speaker slips, but we're a little
more informal. \\/l1el1 e\ery'lmdy' gets dOlle \vl1o's Oil the speaker slips, I'll ask il'there's anybody else that wants to
speak.
And sOllletimes the best \vay' (0 apprn(ll'h discussion is ]')y silllply say'ing you agree with the previous
spe,lker rather thaI! bc redundant.
So with all that in mind. we'll lllov'e rOl'\\';:m.L And as the speakers arc called we ask that you come to one
ol'the microphones ;1I111 stall' your ]1<1111e for the record and then \ve'lI hear what you've got to say.
l{a:y?
~IR. BI:LL< JWS: Wllll"<Jllg Schultz'.'
(No response.)
MR. BELLOWS: han Steillgat1"
f\iJR. STI~IN(i.I\RT: (,ont! ,111cmoon. :\Iy nallle is I:van Sleingm1 and I represent the home owners of
Napoli. r:;:dling \Vaters, (ilcn Eagle and l'oulllryside. The:,' have asked me to represent them in this matter.
As a matter ur l;lCt, we have re,lChed Ollt to the developeL 10 BatTY, ,md have mct \\'ith him. And one of
the biggest issLlcs that \ve Iwve is that we just could nol comc 10 agreement 011 anything. \Ve get a lot of could be IS,
might be's. can he's, but we don't get an)' sort ol'nw(ehing to our needs. v./hich basically our needs are that we don1t
\\'<Jllj a retail cOlllponent. \Ve think it's 1101 needed.
And wc nlso /Cel that that artl.xdablc hOLlsing clHllpollenl. \vhy is il thai East Naples has all the af)()rdable
hOLlsing? There ,Irc lllore Ihan 4.000 unused hOLlsing credits, the majority of those being in East Naples. So we
ICclthat we're ulIl'tirlv saddled with that.
\Ve feel that tile density of this project is \\",IY. W;IY too high. If you take Napoli, which is across the street,
Page 52 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 164 of 407
this project has almost two-and-a-half times more density than Napoli does, And we feel it's out of character with
the rest of the community, We have a very low density amenity-rich community in those neighborhoods of Napoli
and Falling Waters and Countryside and Glen Eagle,
And, you know, on the site plan, I mean, we don't see a swimming pool, although he says that there will
be, We don't feel that there are a lot of amenities there, And we also feel that at 700 square feet it's -- the condo
units in there are far, far smaller than the smallest unit in any of the other communities, So we feel that this
development is out of context with the surrounding community, It just doesn't fit
Another thing I wantcd to add is that, you know, this seems to be a very 2005 plan that may have worked
in 2005, 8ut he's bringing us this plan for 20 I 0 and it doesn't seem very relevant And if I'm a banker and I'm
going to loan these guys moncy and I see this 35,000 square feet of retail, which absolutely makes no sense, it's
not visible, it's not compelling to put a retail store in there, it's very difficult to access, and 700 square f(lot condos,
and what I personally think is a pretty run-of~the-mill development, there's just nothing eompeJling to make me
want to build this or to make me ""'ant to lend money to it.
So that's my personal thought on that. . ._,
One other thing I did want to mention, actually two other things and then J'1l step down, The timing of this
was not in our best interests, Over half of our people are gone up n0l1h, It's before a holiday, a lot of people have
gone away, And also, the session itself was very long; we lost a /,'w people, So a lot of people wanted to be here
couldn't be here,
And then the other thing is, as far as, you know, I just know there's a f,'TOUP of people that are working
very hard to make East Naples a better place, a more upscale place, saleI', more inviting, And I think by approving
this project as it is, I don't think it works in their f"VOL I think it's just another affordable housing project at a very
prominent location, and it does nothing to enhance the community. And thatls why the community is not really
rallying bchind this project.
The other thing with the retail stores, if you put a grocery store in there, think of the traffic that you're
going to create at that intersection, It's -- I'm not sure what the plan is I()f County Bam, but I understood that it was
not ill the live-year plan 1'01' any kind of\vidcning.
So County 8am, the way it is, just cannot SUpp0l1 any more tramc, It's a very dangerous road, And if
you put a grocery store in there, I hate to think what might happen.
That's really alii have to say. And thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one point I'd like to make, and that is we have to live by the rules that
are handed to us, In some cases there's cel1ain levcls we can be flcxible with, like the Land Development Code,
It's harder with the (iMP,
When this went through as a GMP amendment -- GMPA amendment there were certain demands made
orthe project. commercia!, retail, afl(mJablc housing. Some of those may be in conniet wi1h other elements of the
GMP, some may not, some may be in question. Bu1 f()J-th(JSC that arenlC our hands are tied.
And I just want you to know that, because some components we may not have a choice wi1h.
MR, STEINGART: I realize that. It;s a very dinicult situation, And agaill, thafs why I do give Barry
credit for Illcc1ing \vith us and tr)'ing to llnd some common ground. But wcTre just so far apart on these type of
things.
And so we really put our 1:1ith in you people to. you knO\v, make sure that any development that goes on
that corner is in tbe best interest or the comlllunity. And based on wbat we have seen so nIT, we don1t feel 1hat
\vay. So. you know, we're putting the onus on you guys to help us with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Appreciate your time,
Next spc'lker, Ray'>
IvlR, BELLOWS: Bob Martel.
MR, MARTEL: My name is Bob Martel. I'm president of Glen Eagle Golfand Country Club, And J'm
going to listen to what Mr. Strain said, I'm not going (0 be repetitive and repeat what Evan has already gone
through.
I'll just make a couple of comments, I agree with everything he said, Some of them are on my hit list
right here,
Page 53 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 165 of 407
One, Barry did meet with us; however, he did volunteer some infomlation that probably if this
development got rezoned and approved he probably would sell it to another developer. He did say that.
I'm cOllcemeu about the traffic increase.
I'm also very concenlcd about how helpless we feel when we watch the iterations of this development go
lrom 50 to 60 singlc-hl111ily homes to 80 with retail space of upwards or 60,000 feet to over close to 300 units,
now back to 234, II's a very dense community at a \'CIY busy corner. County Bam Road had a couple fatalities
last year right in that vicinity, by the way, and that's a j~lct.
I am very coneemcd, Wc feel helpless, especially when we hear the Planning Commission tell us that
they can't do anything. And that's a Vel)' helpless reeling.
Thank you ('(.)f listening.
CJ IAII~MAN STRAIN: I'd just like to comment. We can't do cverything, but we ean try to make things
as good as possible, And we will do that.
MR, BELLOWS: Don Festa')
(No response.)
MR. BELLOWS: Julie Olinski?
(No response.)
MR. BELLOWS: Barbara Walters'>
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Arc you thc rcal Barbara Walters')
MS. \-\fALTERS: I \vish I was. I ,,'ouldn1t have to worry about where I \vas living, et cetera.
I totally agree with \\/hal Evall has said, and also Boh. But I just -- and I'll make it brief I moved down
here permanently thrcc years ago, and I love Naples and I love Glen Eagle. And I am active. I am one of the
directors on Glen F,agle's nwstcr hoard and I'm also president of the Chatham Square One Condominium
/\ssl1Ciati{)tl.
Everything they said I totally agree with. I am not against atfordable housing. My children at one point in
their lives could have I~IlIen into that situatioll, be it a teacher. he it a lirclllan. VI/'e kllow how difficult it is here to
afrord to live here ill Naples. And I'll] J{JI1ul1<lte ~- I lCel liJI1unate that I'm able to he here.
But I ha\'l: stnHlg opposition!o the dOvvllzoning of this propcI1)' as it stands. I can understand that hels got
(I right to huild. I just rec] lhal 2~4 units and .~5.{){)U square fect of stores. cOlllmercial stores on 22.8 acres is quite
a dcnsity isslle.
In my opinion there is no Ilced at this time it)!" fl1l1her devcloplllL'llt in all already disastrous housing and
commercial market. Vv'e IUlvc man)' stores that arc empty already on Davis. which stretches to all or thc empty
stores. including the ones ;:It the \\-'<I]-l'v1art compk-'\. and a L'olllplctc leveling oftrecs at Santa Barbara where there
\vas supposed to be sOlllething going. in but right nl'w nothing is going in. And to think that a property could be
Icveled amlt!Jcn something happen \vhere \vc dOIl't IlavL' building there is a real. real scary thing to think about.
The density is very diflicult on Coullty Barn Road. Imcml. it eO]lcems us because it is a two-lane road.
And we had henrd that it\ no! on the livc-y'ear plan. And I know that r'v'lr. Cioldmeier stated to us at a meeting that
he would -- he plans to Widen that mad \vherc Ill' lS pianlllllg \0 huild. And then what happened. it goes Il1 a
t\vo~lane road past thl' pbnncd development. And it doesn't make sense. Itls nothing but more accidents, more
accidents w;Jilint-' 10 happcll.
/\l1d we've heard ..dl (by tud~IY ..lboullhc [llCl tklt \vc might do and wc might put and \ve might have. And
there ~~ il's ton many unanswered questions about \vhat is going to happen \vith this property here. And we think
there should he more accoulltability about that !(x the Planning Board to really take a seriolls look at it.
There are many prolcssinnal units already empty Oil D..lVis. if y.'OU go hy the Sunrise Pharmacy. So the
need 1'01' all or these stores is -- \VL' don't red is there. 11 might have becn there in 2005 but -- I'm not against
sc;:ding do\vn this pn~ject. hut 2~4 units is all <lwJ"ullot of units to put ill that small area of space.
It's the density, the roads and the avaihlbility that IS in the current home market for people who want to buy
homes or condos. which an: -~ rentals arc going for S50{) a month in Osprey Landing, which is right down the road
li'ol1l11S.
So thaI IS all. I appreciate the time you've givcn me. And I just hope that you will realize that we support
the Collier COllnty go\'eITllllcnt. llln\'C\'Cr. we hope that you \villlllakL' decisions that alleet llS, the people who live
Page 54 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 166 of 407
here in Naples, Thank you.
CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray?
MR, BELLOWS: No other registered speakers,
CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Anybody in the audience wish to speak on this issue?
Okay, one at a timc, Let the ladies go first Ma'am, come on up,
MS, CATERA: Hi, My name is Sylvia Catera, Just moved here with my husband from up north, Very
similar project to this onc was built close to my neighborhood, And it took me usually about 10 minutes to get to
work, which increased to about 45 minutes once the project was complete. It was an absolute nightmare,
I think that considering the congestion and also the environmental factors that pollution, extra cars may
cause, I think you should really consider. And I do agree with everybody else that has spoken here. Thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am,
Yes, sir. That's the last lady that stood up, so it's your tum,
MR. CHRISTELER: My name is Jean-Claude Christeler. I bought a condominium here in Naples, in
spceific_ally Napoli six years ago, I enjoy very much to be here and I appreciate all the efTort you are putting in
doing!hc due dihgenec for this project
I would like to say that the absence of the crisp definition of the project, the high level of density and the
commercial nature of this project. which doesn't seem to be very valuable is a concern to me. And] certainly
concur with the other speaker, that is something this commission needs to consider very seriously as not enhancing
the community.
Thank YOLl very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Okay, I belicvc that's our last public speaker, Ray'.'
With that, Mr. Pritt, I know you may want -- did you want a rebuttal?
MR, PRITT: Yes,just a few minutes,
C'IIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm asking, I have to give Cherie' a break, I can do it now or I can
do it -- you want a fe\\' moments and then we'll come back to you ailer we come back from break? Okay.
So let's take a IS-minute break and be back here at 2:25 for a rebuttal and then discussion by the board,
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back Irom the break. We're going to resume the meeting, We
!ell olTwith the, I guess, closing comments or rebuttal, however Mr. Pritt would like to qualify it as,
It's yours, sir.
MR, PRITT: I'll give you bad news and good news, I do want to havc just a couple of minutes at most
and have Mr. Polak come back Oil one isslle. And the good news -- well. that's actually probably the good news.
The better news is that I'll probably be \vaiving any closing COlllments unless .you have any questions for mc. I
think you've hcard enough Loday, you've kind ofhoxcd the Issue.
So 1\11'. Polak, would YOll come back for one second~ couple seconds?
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I wdl have -- whcn wc linish, I have one question of you before we get to
deliberations,
MR, POLAK: I just wanted 10 go back and discuss, Bcfore we broke for lunch, maybe well bef(lre we
broke I(lr luueh, we had discussed aboul the issue, about the bulTering that we have along County 13am and Davis
Boulevard,
And one of the things I wauted to try to point out there, amI I think Robel1 is here and he can hopefully
confinn it, is that along Couuty Barn Road there's actually a scries of setbacks there,
There's a drainage casement as well as a landscapc buf'fcr. And I believe the graphic that Robert's
sho\ving is ultimately showing the completed intersectIon fiJr County Bam Road there.
So in ef'feet f;-OI11 the sidewalk to our parking lot is close to 60 feet So there is a bit more butTer thcre than
maybe everyone was seeing, based on what was written, perhaps in the dOCUlllcnts.
And subsequently, the same case can be made along Davis Boulevard where we, you know, on one hand
we've agreed to pull back the building and subsequent to that, most likely the parking would get pulled back along
with that.
Page 55 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agcmda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 167 of 407
And I believe that. you knn\'v'. our intent \vas at least is that we wanted to be able to screen those roads.
We felt that putting the buildings on the comer or County Barn and Davis did a disservice to the overall iutent of
the plan and I believe the intent of traditional neighborhood design elements.
Our intent was that making a pedestrian lI-icndly community is we want people to walk on the street, on
the sidewalk. Wc don't want thelll -- we only want them walking through a parking lot when they get out of their
car. Vie don't want them walking through a parking lot so they can go to Barry's ice cream stand that he'll be
opening up there.
So that was why we did it that way, And our intcnt was to create a buffer there with landscaping, with
henning. you know, with placing -- you know, with pl;:lcing it Illf away f)"olll the County Banl intersection.
But we really do see that that retail or that -- I don't want to say retail component, but that commercial
compollent, \vhdhcr it's retail or it's livc,/work n]" it's small businesses and omces there really arc part of that
neighborhood that \vc're trying to create. and not really trying to focus that (!ltention along the intersection of
County Barn and Davis Boulevard. \\/hicl1 if you look at the aerial, there's really not anything to really anchor that
type ofre1ail use or even commercial use for that Ilwttcr.
SO \VC \V(mld a:-;k that )'l)U l'l)Ilsidcr thaI the ide,] l)f creating more butTering techniques. whether- ifs
through landscaping or henlling: or other devices that we work out with staft: really take strong considemtion to
that Thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ok"y, th'lI1k YIlll.
Mr. Mun'"y')
COi\IMISSIONER MURR/\ Y: I wuuld like Juhnl'udezerwinsky, ifhe'd cume f(lrward, J'd appreciate it
I need to ask him a question.
Thank you. John,
MR,I'O!JCZLRWINSKY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONFR MURRAY: II' yuu knuw, a typical 21J,1J01J-squarc fout grocery or that type or store,
what is the !lumber of vehicles that generall}' service tlIat'?
I ask you hecause of your knowledge oftransportatioll,
MR. I'O!JC7ERWINSKY: I wuuld kl\'e tu take" second luuk at it in our ITE books, As a standalone
store, I'Ill 1101 rl'ally sure,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's mv point, I'm tlying to ascertain -- even a general answer.
\~/c're talking ahout 374 units. 47 of which plus, plus, plus represent commercial: therefore \ve reduce that number
ofresidcntinl. Ifwc had all residential. it would he 53R pel1plc. hased on 2,3,
Is that enough to capture 20.000 square flH)t? Is that !!Oillg tu sust;:lin a 20.000 square tlJot store that has no
capture rate?
MR,I'UI)CZLRWINSKY: Again, I don't have a g(lIl1! answer Ic)r that. What I did -- what we did look at
Cor the 20.()()() square [(Jot cOlllp,]risllJ] \\'<lS the 2(J,()(J() square ket or supermarket replacing 20,UOO square feet of
shopping center. It's got a slightly higher trip gellcr,ltor Ill!' the use.
CUMMISSl< ):'\L!{ IVILJRRA Y: !Jld you come up Wltll a IlLII1lher assocIated WIth that'!
IVIR,I'UDC/I:RWINSI,Y: Y(';1I1, It's loughly III addition:tl trips external -- on the external roadway
network Cor a grocery' store versus just general shopping ccnlcr sqU;:lre footage. \Vhe11 it's more specific to a
shopping center--
('()MIVIISSIUNER i\ll!RRAY: Uk:t\" Ilut 11 would help me in terms or thc gross lIumber that I'm
looking /ll!',
M R, J>ODC7ERWINSK Y: l !nlilrtunately we didll't go that deep in the analysis,
CUMMISSIUNER MURRAY: Well. I dIdn't -- you know, Jllst in the on~hand chance you did, that's why
I'm asking.
I'm just having a struggle to think that an internal residential location can draw enough to supp0l1 that and
sustain it is just -- okay. thank you,
MR. PUDC7ERWINSKY: I can clarify also that the internal eapturc rate wasn't adjusted when we
allowed the analysis of thc shopping center use versus the supcllllarkc! use, There's an intemal capture rate that's
inherent 10 any kind ol'mixcd use development.
Page 56 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14,2010
Page 168 of 407
And in this case, and I did check on this this morning, it's a 15 percent internal capture rate, just kind of an
across-the-board cut that was approved through our analysis,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I apologize, but maybe you could help me in my ignorance,
When we talk about a capture rate for an intemal -- this is essentially a compound, Fifteen percent of the totality
are going to use it, or that's 15 percent --
MR, PODCZERWINSKY: The 15 percent is the outcome of a calculation that is provided by ITE that
tells you when you have so many units of square lllotage for shopping center versus so many units for housing
units, And also ollice units are included in that by square footage,
There's a celiain calculation between the three different uses, and it's sort of a triangle sort of a diagram
lhat we have that we use,
We always use the lowest percentage of internal capture that is allowed between those three uses, and then
we deduct that from the overall trip generation, You'll notice that in some of the traffic studies that we have out
there where it shows anywhere from usually like a three percent to a 15 percent intemal capture reduction, And
what that does is takes trips right off'thc bottom line.
So if a normal pr6j"ect with a strict trip generation without any reductions may produce let's say a
hypothetical 100 trips, okay, if they have a 15 percent reduction they're going to have 85 net extemaltrips, And
that assumes that 15 of those trips travel between the uses, maybe office to shopping center for -- at the end of the
day somebody leaves to go shopping, or maybe fi'om shopping center to the residential where they go home from
their shopping trip at the end of the day, but it's all within the same --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Curiosity here is this a walkable community, so--
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And that's what thai's meant to represent as welL So not just driven trips
within the site but also internal capture --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Any trips is what you're telling me tilere,
MR.I'ODCZERWINSKY: Yes,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, welL that heirs to know that.
MR. PODCZERW1NSKY: Trips that arc reduced from the cxternal impact of the project, if that helps to
make sense.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, if I hear you correctly then what I now think you're saying to me,
and I'm truly not e1ear, that means that 15 percent of the households that are there will not have to go out? Okay,
MR, POJ)CZERWINSK Y: That is correct, yes. That's the intention of the intelllal capture reduction,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So by the reverse, of course, would be those theoretically that would be
captured.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That slillleaves us with a signilieanl qucstion of with that fewer number
of households can that sustain a 20,OOO-lilot operation.
I dOll't ask YOll 10 answer that. Thank you.
Cl IAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron')
COMMISSIONER CARON: Nollilr you, John. I wanted to ask Kay: Many of the speakers who got up
to speak brought up the issue of dcnsity. And I'd like you to tell everybody for the record what densities are like in
the surrounding arca li,r arcas like Napoli and Falling Waters and Glen Eagle and Countryside and whatever else
is inlhal --
MS, IJESELEM: Yes, ma'am, For the record, Kay IJcselem, Zoning,
Ray and I did a quick calculation based on the I'lID hst that's currently published on the county website.
And wc lilUnd that lilr Glcn Eagle, which is 1''''1 ofthc Brctonnc PUD, the density li,r that overall project is 4,14
units per acre. For Falling Waters il is 5.07. And jllr Countlyside, which is part of the overall Berkshire Lakes
PUD, it's listed as },99 units per acre,
For the Napoli project, based on the zoning map that was in the application packet, that tract is zoned
RMF-6(4), the lour meaning that it can't be developed at a density greater than four units per acre, I don't know
exactly what density it might be built to. but it can't be more than f()Ur, according to the zoning.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you,
Page 57 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
l\[lenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 169 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ukay, I would like to ask then David Weeks as a follow-up question to what
Kay just discussed. And 110, it's not about something Corby analyzed, it's something that -- poor David, he gets
picked on every time he's here.
David, you know that in the GMP Il)r this project it says a minimum amount of units they must supply is
91 residentiaL Is Ihere any requirement that they be given any more than (hat? Meaning are they -- do they have a
right to more density. or is that at the discretion of the various hoards?
MR. WEEKS: That's at the discretion of the various boards.
CIIAIRM AN STRAIN: Ukay, Ihank you,
Mr. Pritt? The next step j(lT us would be to close the public hearing and have discussion and then a
motion and then any discllssIon Oil the nwlioll.
Bet(lre I do, I just want to mention to you that I think this project could have done much bettcr in
producing a marketable product Illr us to consider to prove the compatibility issues that are required by not only
our LDC and our (iMP but also by statute. Compatibility is rcJCrcnced in all levels of documents.
Ii would have been better if wc underslood more, at least l()r me personally, how all the compatibility
issues rcally fit. The conceptual plan you showed \'''as a big help. The orientation of the buildings versus how we
got to where they arc in language in the (iMP would have helped to better understand some of those issues.
I laving the tract lines, having the amenities shown, all those would have really helped to understand the
quality ofprnduct you \vanted to put in and its compatibility with others ill the neighhorhood.
/\nd I wanted to make that statement 10 you because I am uncomfortable with the project with the
information we\'c becn givcllto date.
\\.:ith that. if you havc anything you want to say' bc!(m.~ we close, go right ahead. But I wanted to be fair
and state that to you up-front.
MR. PR1TT: I appreciate that. Your constructive erilicism--
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Gel c10scr to the mic. if you could.
fvIR. PRITT: )'our constructive criticism is accepted, and we\.i like to go ahead and move for\.\/ard.
I have nothing: 1LII1hcr in closing to say. as I indicated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ukay, thank vou.
Vv'ith thaI, wc']] close the public hearing ,lIld we'll entcrtain discussioll.
Ms. C'aron?
COMMISSIONER CARUN: No, I "'Cl, .iusl going 10 orler Mr. Pritt the chance to take you up on your
offcr of 11111 her delineating some of these things and cOllling hack.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL a",llhat's al",ays open, !'vIr. Pritt. If that's something you feel you want to
cOllle back and clean up tIll: two -- m;:ly'bc ] 9 (11':20 items that we have Oil our list. you're more than welcome to
and -- or it's up to Y'OLl.
MR. PRITT: WclL it's tnv underslanding that this may he a tll11e j(,r us to enter inlo those stipulations.
Thcy're hot Oil e\'erybody's mind right now. And \\'L' do not want 1() have 10 comc back and do another -- do a
resuhmlSsi{)t1.
I understand you have (l process Ihal if' \vc eml \vork things out Ihat we'd come back 011 consent, and I'd
like to at least ask that you consider that and that we see if \ve call do Ihat.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,
C( )l\lMISSJ( lNER MURRA Y: MClrk'.'
C11;\IRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray"
CUMMISSION!'R I\IURRA Y: I just relllelllbered and realized that we never ,tJd go back to those SIC
Code isslles. And you had indicated that we would be doing that. Do you want to close the public hearing first
and then have that as paJ1 ol'the discussion, or do you \vant to go through that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought wc went ~~ I mean, J thoughl--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You wetlt through the live with the ROlllannulllerals--
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: And t!Jcy agreed they would all go back to conditional uses on those,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, hut they weren't the only ones that might have been qualifIable,
There W;:IS ;:\ whole series of thus!:.
Page 58 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 170 of 407
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the only live that weren't part ofa standard C-l, 2 or 3 zoning based on the
time of the approval of that subdistrict was the added ones on that were conditional uses, And the issue of
conditional uses versus permitted uses was the one we discussed with David,
And then Mr. Goldmeier said that he would accept conditional uses on all of them except for one that
needed some clarification involving the right to put in charter schools or schools similar in nature that Seagate may
benefit lrom -- or Seacrest, I'm sorry,
That to me is how it was lell. J thought it was clcar enough to go into a stipulation on, Bob. But if there
are other issues and you want to bring them back up, that's fine, Now is the time to do it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the question that J had was this, simply, The general categories
were expressed, followed by the parentheticals and the numbers that ran through the SIC Code, which sometimes
could be 20 or 30 items. And I would have far preferred that they be handled at a much earlier stage,
But if you're comfortable that everything that's in there that they can try, that's fine too, if we're going to
approve this thing, l1's questionable as to whether it will survive on that basis, that's aiL
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, part of my_thoughts was this project is so limited in the amount of
commercial space it has, it's not going to be able to have a big box under any circumstances. Any particular use by
the GMP is limited to 15,000 square feet, cxcept jllr grocery, which is 20,000,
So with those kind of limitations, I wasn't too concerned about the uses getting out of hand that they had
put in their table.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And intercstingly, it was just the reverse that concemed me, because as
they would struggle to try to survive, they may be putting in things that would be not highly beneficial to the
community, further exacerbating the problem. But that's okay, we're good.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, With that, we will -- Kay, do you have something you popped up?
Oh, Mr. Pritt's -- okay, we'll get you botli belllre we go luliher.
Go ahead. sir.
MR, PRITT: Belllre it escapes mv mind, I think tlierc were two items that Mr. -- on the list there that we
discussed this morning. There afC two items that Mr. Goldmcier expressed a concem about.
One -- and kJrget about whcre it is on an SIC Code lc)r a second, But one, he would like to be able to have
a tutoring service because of' being so close to the school, and probably because of the likelihood that there might
be tcachers living in that area. So that would he one.
And the other was to make sure that we're not eliminating the COllllllUJllty center for the residents. I think
that tbat \vas generally agreed to, but I wanted to make sure that it was covered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thc community center issue I ol1ered up as a -- covered under the
accessory uses B-4, \vhere it lists recreation uses and HlCilitles including swimming pools. And it lists an entire
paragraph or uscs that would bcnefit the community. And they would bc acccssory to the community. So that
would take it <:l\vay as a principal use ;:llld make it an accessory to the residcnts, which I thought was the direction
YOll wanted to go. V/hich thcn would eliminate the need for that amusemcnt and recreation category that can get
kind of confusl!lg with 60 or more--
MR. PRITT: Mr. (3oldmeier is saying fine.
CHA1RMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank yon.
K<lY?
MS. IlESELEM: On that samc issuc, three things Ihat Illlrgot to mention when I spoke earlier, that right
now is the PUll doeumcnt table is setup, therc is a PDR list of -- propel1y development regulations list within the
residential portion f(x the clubhouse and recreational uses, hut it hasn't been callied over to the mixed use portion.
So if in fact it's the intent to have it there, that needs to be either moved there or added there in addition to
\vhere it is now, if they \vant the option to put it both places.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (;ood point, Kay, Thank you.
MS, DESELEM: The other thing I noted --
MR, PRITT: We have no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as she finishes,
MS, DESELEM: The other thing I noted is you went and put the three-story limitation within the
Page 59 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No SA
December 14, 2010
Page 171 of 407
residential portion, hut I didn't hear refercnce to adding it into the mixed use portion, And I didn't know if that was
your intention or not, but I thought I'd mention that. The other thing -_
MR. PRITT: We agree to that.
MS, DESELEM: I have an echo.
The other thing I noticed was that in the table when it was taken from the C-l, C-2 and C-3 uses, there
was one limitation that was somehow left out. In the table it's IClOtnote 22, and I believe it references to no uses
can occupy more than 5,000 square feet of space or something to that efTect. And I would recommend that that
footnote be added into the mixed use p0l1ion so that the project list of uses is then consistent with the C-I, 2, and 3
uses listed in the table of that ordinance 2005-25 or whatever's referenced.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schirler'l
COMMISSIUNER SCIIIFFER: Yeah, let meJust wlll'k back,
But isn't that a connict with the -- it says no single commercial use in the commercial component shall
exceed 15,000 feet in the (iMP, so n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Her reference wasn't fc)r all thc uses, only lilT certain specific ones, if I'm not
mistaken, right?
MS, DESELEM: I don't understand the question. Which--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and maybe I don't understand it, but the n I mean, they're allowed
-- the single uses arc allowed in he 15,()()(l feet in the GMP subdistrict. And you were saying the 5,000 comes
from --
MS, DESELEM: That is in the list of uses referenced in the ordinance that says C-l lhrough C-3 uses in
effect at the time that that suhdistrict was ad(l]11ed. There's a furthlT limitation that some of them can't be morc
than 5.000 square /Cet Ami it's only -- the only use that has that limitation is the nile listed as miscellaneous retail.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So what she's saying is if he wanted to do something that qualifies as
miscellaneous retail, not olle uf the retail uses listed, that miscellaneous retail \vmild be limited to 5,000 square
lCel, not the rest of it.
MS. DES/] .EM: The 15,000 would apply to evelything clse as listed, bUI there's an additional limitation
to 5,000 li)r some of them.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (lk<iy. I\nd then the other question is thc clubhouse thing, Since in the
commercia] they' arc allowed to have tlwt as ~l usc in one o1'thc buildings, why would they need to add as if they
were going to do a standalone clubhouse building, tlr--
MS. IlFSJo:I.EM: I wasn't certain exactly what he proposed. It sounded like to me, and I don't wish to put
words in his mouth, hut it sounded like tll me that it might he a stalld~ll{)nc building. Because he did mention he
didn't put it Oil the site p1<ln, So that le~lds JIll' to belicve it's going to be <l separate building.
MR. (jOLllMI'IFR: We would liKe Ihe option to pU! in more amenities instead of fewer amenities, so
\vc'd like the option tu do eilhlT/'or or both.
COMMISSlllNER SCHIFFER: Just so long as ifhe docs put it in the main -- in a cOlllmercial building,
YOllire not holding him to the reqllill'llll'nts of the ntiH:r budding, That's ali.
MS. IlESEI.Efv1: I didn't look at it in ael'ordanee with that. hul if ii's an allowable use listed -- I think we
kind or llarnl\ved it dn\\'ll tu the l;lct tl1<1t it would he an accessory lIse. It wouldn't be -- which leads me to be
believe iI's gllillg to he 1lI0rl' sl~Hldalune. nut I gucss ,1S long ~IS it's a permitted use or an accessory' allowable use,
he e<ln put it \vllcrever he \vants to,
C(HvIMISSlllNER SCIIIFFER: fmc;lIl. what vou wanl to do is add clubhouse and recreation huildings
into the commerci,d component.
MS. IlESU.EM: Right, to be consistent with the accessory use list that he has within that section that
alhnvs Illr those uses, \\/l1at is it. B-4? I don't ha\c it in front of me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is I would r<llher not be building clubhouse buildings in the
commercial component, e\'Cll incorporating ill one or his buildings clubhouse uses.
MR. (JOI.IlMEILR: I don't think II",t's wl1<lt we intended to, At one time we were toying with having a
separate clubhollse in tile resiJclltinll;lcilil)' and having a cOllllllunity 1'00111 in the cOlllmercial facility. And out of
an abundance of caution vvc just shoV\'cd -- \Vc didn't show any of it. And we lllay have a larger community facility
Page 60 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Aqenda Item No. SA
D'ecember 14, 2010
Page 172 of 407
in the mixed use pOliiol1, because that's where we're planning to move the pool.
MS, DESELEM: Ijust brought it to your attention so that you could--
MR. GOLDMEIER: We just want the option to do more, not less,
COMMISSIONER SCIlIFFER: So you want that then?
MR, GOLDMEIER: We want the ability to do that if that --
COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: I mean, here we're back to division of this neighborhood plan where you
have the clubhouse or the recreation area on the other side, l3utthat's okay,
MR, GOLDMEIER: No, I was looking at that as an accessory clubhouse, For instance, if there's a tot lot
built there or something else and you want bathrooms or if you want other facilities to accompany, you know, or
just an extra benef1t for the residential portion to be able to put something there, And I don't know what else to
call it aside from a clubhouse.
MS. DESELEM: Not that I'm taking one side or the other, but it seems as though if he's going to have 47
residential units in the mixed use pOIiion, itls clearly going to be residential units in there as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you're arguing use, and Kay I think is bring up building
regulations, setback distance from buildings and stuff, And I don't thitlK'it's a good idea to add that into the
commercial, because you could build commercial uses because it's an allowable use and put it in that building,
MR. GOLDMElER: I don't j(lreSee having a freestanding clubhouse in the mixed use portion, That may
be the ease lDr the residential pOliion as an additional lacility.
COMMISSIONER SCI1IFFER: And if you did build a fi-eestanding building in the commercial area, you
would like to huild it under the commercial area requirements. which is why the clubhouse thing might confuse
that.
MR, nOLDMEIER: Yes, I agree with you,
MS, DESELEM: That's alll have, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of anybody')
Mr. Pritt?
MR,I'IZITT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Kay made me get away jrom tile microphone,
I just wanted to makc sure that wc talked about putting out 22 and tbat you heard from us that it's okay,
Itls my understanding that the effect of that is to have a 5.000 square femt limitation on the miscellaneous use
section -- provision.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thc effect is simply to make your uses cunsistent with tile document that you
agreed 10 \vhcll the (iMP was done.
1'vlR. PRITT: I understand that's the legal erJeet. But the question came up I think earlier today fi-om Mr.
Murray as to what's to keep us hom having three 5.000's <Ind then another 5,000 and so 011. And footnote 22 is
what docs that. And I checked with Mr. Cioldmeier and he said that's okay, Ilopefully that will --
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Now, arc there any other questions of anybody bel"ore \ve --
COMMISSIONER IIOMIAK: Ijust have one question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN Ms.llomiak"
COMMISSIONll( J-10MIAK: I've heard n throughout this day I've heard the word apartment mentioned
and rental apartment community. Is that the intent, to havc thc residential portillll of this tract rental? Because the
alfordable housing lws 10 be ()Vo/ner.
I'v1 R. PRITT: As Mr. (,oldmeier said, we do not know what the market will be at this point, and so the
option may still bc open one way or the other. So most likely there'll bc a pOl1ion of each.
But n I think dUlt's the answer. f\.'layhc Ban)' call answer better than it can"
MR. CiOLDMEll'R: Napoli went limn a rental apaJiment to a condominium back to a rentaL We can't--
COMMISSIONI]~ I-IOMIAK: So is that a yes'!
MR. CiOLDMEIER: What, there are rental units? There are no rental units in Napoli?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Goldmeier, you can't do that. You work with us. The audience needs to be
silent. Thank you,
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes. We will do whatcver we can do, given the climate and financial conditions at
Page 61 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 173 of 407
the time,
MR. PRITT: I think the question had more to do with the afl'1I'liable housing units, The concem had to
do with tbat; is that con'ect"
COMMISSIONER HOM1AK: Well, actually both, I heard rental apartment community, To me that
means that all the units are going to be rental units. But the all<lrdable housing units, the workforce and the gap
housing in our LOC have to be ownership. That's not rentals,
MR, (iOLDMEIER: I don't think so. And we're willing to commit to things that are within our control.
What thefinallcing markets are and what the rental or sales market are arc not within our control. We can commit
to everything else that we can control, but that lean't control.
And I don't believe that the an')I'dable workl"rce requires it to be either rental or sale, Am I correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corhy"
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Owner occupIed only.
MR. SCHMIDT: If the afElrdable workl,,,'ce housing units were pmi of a typical county agreement for
them, and p3]1 of the county program wlwrc bonuses were derived iI-olll providing them, they're owner occupied.
III this C(lSC it's a differcnt scenario. Those alTonJablc workflJrCe housing units arc a part of a requirement
of thc subdistrict. and there's no requirement tbm tbcy be owner occupied. They may be rentals,
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Wbcrc is tbat in the Land Development Code'l
I'vHe SCIIM IDT: ICs not (lUll I Iwve a place to point to, it's that there's not language to point to that there's
the rcquircmcllt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me. Klatzkow'!
MR. KLAT/XOW: You know, just !"r clarity purpose, okay, thc market is the market, okay, And
they're going 10 \\'anlln make as Illllch a prolit ~IS they can. rhe-re's more profit ill upper end building than there is
in lower end building. But there's IW reason \vhy this entire thing is not going to be rental and there's 110 reason
why this entire thing is not going 10 bc.lcrsjust call it alTordable, all right?
YUlI k1Hl\V. it could be minimum. I k's!!.ot minillluills of 10 percent. 10 percent. all right? But IhaCs not
maXllllum. And, }'llll know, look, my neighborhood's changed. I mean, you know, values have gone down,
rentals have gone down. You kllow. the \vorld sometimes goes lip. the \vorld sometimes goes dOvvn.
Ill' lIlay nol he building this thillg fl)[' ~/cars. al] right? This is just to gel the zoning in place. He may sit
on it. he Ilwy dCVL'llljl it tUlllOITOW, he 111,1:-' nip it. I dOIl't kno\\', all right? But you know. \vhL:1l you approve this, it
could he a 1(11 or differellt things. It could be (I clllldollliniulll developllll:llt, it could be an apartment house
de\'c1opIIH:rlt. It's \\I1;lt the (jj\lp1s alll)wing himlo do.
ClIAIRMA"i SII<AIN: (lkav. Is that it. (orh,'.'
MR. Sl'IIMIIJI: That is.
Cl L\IRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
All)' other questions or ;lI1yblld}' hel\.lrc I clOSl' the public hearing?
(N(l rcslli.)llsc.)
L'i L\IR!\'lAN STRAIN: uk:!y. then \ve wiii close the public hearing and \ve \viii have discussion.
Docs '-lll:-body want to start olT on disClIssilHl?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL Imcan--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me. SeltiJ'lcr"
('( )MM ISSI( lNER SCIIIFITR: Ila, CIJ't IVC carned somc stipulalions, Mark, you want --
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-one to bc exac!. Mayhc 20, but 21 --
l'OMMISSI< lNI':R SCHIFFER: I.ct's walk thnlllgh those and see where we all stand Oil that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
C( lMMISSIUNER MURRAY: I would I"vor that.
CIL'\IRMAN STRAIN: Well. there', onc that isn't a stipulation but it's a general concenJ that was
brought up. <.lnd Mr. Klatzkow pointed itllut and it \vas a really good catch.
This whole debate ahout the interior parking and nil that. \\/l1at \\-'as the intent of the original application?
This \vas not a puhlic application. this was <l private applicJtioll. Su when the language was fommlated. what was
the intent in the public meetings. how did the IJnguage get there'! Nobody has gone back and looked at the GMPA
Page 62 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 17401407
that got us here or the minutes of the meetings.
So with that being said, I'll walk through the rest of this, But that's the first note I had, and it was based on
an earlier discussion this morning. We don't know what the original intent was to either say yea or nay to the idea
of what internal to the site means, And that's my first issue on the list that I kept: Is the parking that's shown
considered internal to the site or does it need to be augmented by changing the buildings or having buffers and
bernls to which we would need cross-sections on to see what it is we're buying into.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that point, and this is to Ray,
Ray, if they are going through the architectural standards and there is a requirement on the location of
parking, you know, a cel1ain percentage in the lront of it and then the back, which would trump -- or would this
trump the architectural standards?
Would thcy be able to say, hey, look, this is the site plan that was approved, we don't have to meet those
conditions?
MR, BELLOWS: The PUD master rlan is a conceptual plan in nature and it wouldn't lock them in -- it
wouldn't supercede the LDC requirements unless it was specilically stated to supercede the architectural standards
111 some way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like a deviation')
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they would seek i( as a deviation at this time, right'!
MR. BEU.oWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the second item was the charter schools, schools and vocational schools
clement. That needed to have some refined language to get to the intent of the use of 111at, which would have been
a formal conditional use under the other criteria.
The third item was a locational recreational area for the residents. lIow -- those weren't shown on the
master plan. And we typically do see those Oil master plans.
The f()uI1h item was that the applicant agreed to stipulate 47 units \vilt be utilized minimum in the mixed
use category.
There was a discussion that Brad had concerning the road right-of-way setback to the building height on
both tables. And the change was to be a minimum 01'25 feet or building height.
There was a discussion abllut the distance between buildings and the reference (0 the height, and it was
discussed to be at least greater than 20 feel. I donlt know if we want to take it any further than that.
There \vas a discussion to add that three-story maxImum on both tables, because that \'\.'a5 what was put
I'JJ1h in the N 1M,
A discussion 011 thc Jee simple standards that we were provided with some, a minimum width of 20 feet
and the size of the arca of I ,200 square feet, which apply to both tables.
We discussed the idea or the issue or not demanding a sound wall in the future when the roads are
improved and widened.. This project won1t comc into Ihe cOllnty and say they \\'anl a sound wall with the
WIdening process.
As Commissioncr Schifrer pointed oul, would need to sho\\' wherc the tract lines are in order to
understand how the dcvclllpmcnt standards fully apply,
Vv' e have to change the community -- the commercial table where it rdcrel1l:es a minimum FAR to a
maXlmum.
Vv'e have to reference in that onc paragraph \vhere we talkcd about public right-of-way, it really is streets
within the development.
The townhouse as a pcrmitted use needs 10 be added to the MU component.
The environmental paragraph item six are items that are already sustained in desib'1l standards by the
permitting agencies. I had suggested a recommcndation to drop that.
The next item would be location of the street cuts. I think Brad, you clarified that, so that's not needed on
the list.
Donna had made the comment that the break-up llf the buildings on the conceptual plan should be shown
Page 63 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 175 of 407
011 the regular plan as a need.
I brought up a eonecm over the atTordable housing requirements, that they're in conflict with both the
GMP and the Florida Statutes. It's an intemal conflict.
Then there was also discussion about modification of Page 14 to clarity the afTordable housing ab'feement
when it goes into clreet and how it's completed. And that was made by Corby, I believe.
And Kay had come Lip at the end and made a couple more comments. the carryover of the recreational
standards JI'cHn the residential, to make sure those afC added to the commercial.
Then we were talking ahout adding ;:1 f()(Jtnote to define the square toot consistent with the table in the
referenced ordinance. which is 5.000 maximum I()[ miscellaneous retail.
Those ~lre the 1101es that I made. And those arc what we should discuss as well as anything else.
SO !lO\\' t]1<Il we have 20 or 21 items, !VIr. I'vturray?
COMMISSIONFR MURRAY: Just illlother qucstion, Unl(1l1unately. With regard to the affordable
housing units, we never -- I don!t think we did discuss the J'clct or question of whether or not at some point they
cq~lle oJTthe table. I kno\\! that in some instances there is a requirement or there is a time frame and they would no
longer be subject to be sold at an afTord,-'lblc -- or rented at an affordable rate. And I'm not sure these are even
going to be subject to that. So llwybc that needs a little clarity from --
CIIA1RMAN STRAIN: Well, lirst or' all. I think the rererence you're making is to a project we had that
also had aJl(xd,lhlc housing requirements, nnd I think was on the corner of Airport and Estey. And in that project
the developer came l(wward LInd sclid wcjus1 emit sit here with ,dTordahle units on the market f()rever. The market
is diClicult tu sell ,-lllyll1ing. alld alTordablc's e\.'LT)/\\'here, can \\ie have a maximum spread of a certain time limit, I
think it \\I;:lS six months aller CO. in \vllich if1hey don't sell, thell they can revel1 to market rate.
But th,-lt iSll't the same discussion that I hrought up on ] S. My discussion was more to eliminate the
requirement cntirely of the ,-In()rdable lh)using ill this documcnt and Oil this prnject, hecause the atl()fdable housing
is in conllict internally with hoth Policy 1.4 of the Ilousing Element and Florida Statutes thaI created that element,
or at least I think Icd 10 Ihe intent ol'that elemcnt.
So I Jon't know \\-,bieh olle YOll want 10 discuss, Mr. Murray n
COMMISSIONER iVIURRA Y: I was thinking or Ave Maria, actually, But needless to say, the point is
that you mmle il thai I intended. I guess if these are not required thcn, I think under the (iMP, certainly it wouldn't.
And I donll 1hink this process here led liS to the ide<l that they were to he marketed at any time particular price
point. They \\'ould simply he nl<lde iJvailablc !()r allordable \vorkforce housing.
/\nd cspecially since 111cy dOIII! have 10 be ill eompliancc \vith our current law regarding the other
workforce !lousing. I don't knllw where \VC stand \vlIh regard to that. That's the question I'm asking. You're
,-1I1s\\'ering ~lllothcr question.
CIIAIRMAN S'I RAIN: Well. who arc you asking your queslion 0\'1
CUI'vHvllSSIUNI:R MURRAY: Anyhody that cares to answcr me, becilllse I don'l know where I should
direct it.
Ci-jAiRivl/\N STRAIl\: hll not sure ol'the question. but i!'allybody understood it and wants to answer it,
I more th,m ~l."k YOll 10 come Lip illld volunteer.
Mr. Pnlt')
MR. PRII:I: If I'm alhmed -- well, mavhc my l'licnt could--
CUMMISSIUNER MlJRRA Y: I could make it more clear if we have to. I don't know if I appreciate
that.
MR. PRITT: SOITy"
CUMMISSIUNLR MURRAY: No, Ihat's tine, go ahead.
MR. PRfTT: I'm sorry.
CUMMISSIONER MlIRRA Y: No, please,
MR. PRITT: As I understand your question, it would have to do with something where you use a best
e!h1l1 -- very similar to thc one you did in the Meridian on -- I think on Estey. And frankly, I think that would
make a lot of sense.
I r -- Therels a provision ill the law that says you don't have to do a futile act. But that docsntt necessmily
Page 64 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 176 of 407
get us off the hook from giving it a try and a good faith efl()rt. And I think that's what you did in the other matters,
You're requiring them -- there was a requirement that they be -- that they try in good faith to do the marketing,
after whieh at some period of time that may be taken away because it just doesn't work because of the marketplace
or whatever our purpose is.
And I think -- I've talked with Mr. Goldmeier a little bit about that. I think that makes sense, But we --
we're not necessarily -- we're not trying to use that in order to get ofT the hook, It's just that something other than
forever being under this requiremcnt, if thc requirement just doesn't work, would make sense, And so I think it's a
very good question,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you f(lf your effort at answering it.
What I was leading to is that we bave a law that says that certain conditions must be met with regard to
workf(lfce housing, Apparently that law in this particular subdistrict may not apply,
I don't even know, based on my reading ofthis, whether or not you folks have to work with the housing
organization to prequalify anybody to be in those apartments or ownerships. And that was the base question that I
was asking, because I think it's very important in that regard.
And I see COIilj?S there, and I don't -- maybe he can help,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a whole lot of people there,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess my provocative question.
MR, SCHMIDT: They've got my back.
The reason staff asked for the stipulation Illr the agreement. and you see it in three fairly long entries, that
we understood that that definition, that specificity wasn't there now. The subdistrict language could be read to
mean 1 111USt have or 1l1111st offer alTordahle units once or in perpetuity or anywhere in between.
And that's why the agreement is being put oil: because we don't have the language here, And the pl3lmed
unit developed. what you1re considering now, ooes not include that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess that's what was frustrating me, because I'm trying to think of how
we can go ahead [ll1d approve something that we donlt even know where the end result's going to be with
something that was specific 10 this subdistrict. Itls kind or open-ended in my mind.
MR. SCHMIDT: I think the applicant makes a good argument that at the point in time when all comes
together and that aflllHtable housing is part of the proposal, that's when some of those specifics to the agreement
can be made.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Goldmcier'l
MR, GOLDMEIER: Yes, exactly, We have had many discussions about that issue, and we have resisted,
strenuously resisted entering into an agreement because we did not want to be pinned down to any specific
requirements which may come in conflict with either market circumstances, other -- the way people look at the
project in general, or vvhatcver financing we're obtaining.
^nd alTonlable housing requirements. this -- okay, low income housing requirements, which is not what
we intend to do, but aff(xdable housing requirements, if I can use that tcn11, usually follow the financing. And the
restrictions placed 011 the rental or sale of the units arc restrictions that are placed as pmt of the recording of a
1ll011gage document.
It has -- it IS follov,'cd \vith a land use agreement and other agrcements which follow the mortgage. It's
never follO\\-'ed -- il never precedes the financing heeause therels a very good chance that it would come into
connict with tIle financing.
And if il comes into conllict with thc linancing, one, it may prevent the property from being financed or
t\\'O, the financing may create a situation that lll,lY be frowned upon by the county.
So the less wc do and the less \ve say and the more opcn to what may happen in the future, the easier it
will be on everybody.
I don't know if! said it correctly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. MUITay','
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just make one last comment regarding that. I appreciate and understand
Page 65 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda lIenl No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 177 of 407
your statement. But to the Chairman's n what I interpret the Chairman's point is lhat we have affordable housing
-- jfthis goes forward, we have affordable units that arc in name only.
MR. GOLDMEIER: I'll take it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm sure you will.
l\ilark, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: Ray, Marcy Krumbine and Buddy Ramsey, have they been involved in
this process at all')
MR, GOLDMEIER: Yes,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And wouldn't they be the ones representing these answers?
MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes. I have had a couple of conversations with Frank Ramsey, And at one time
when -- and at the time when Bob Pritt and I went to the Board of County Commissioners to ask I(lr relief from the
atfordable housing requirement tl181 was contained in the Compo Plan amendment. we got a -- I believe a letter of
sLlpp0I1 from Frank Ramsey fl.H" that. Because he hased -- his position was that since we were not -- since we
reduced our density to tIll: point \-vhere we were not seeking an arrordable housing density bonus. that they would
have -- his department would not he sllpcr\!ising the units or overseeing the units and that they thus sUPPOIied us
removing the requirement entirely.
COMMISSIUNER SCIIIFFER: Imcan, the reason I'm in sU1'p011 of these units though, is in the gilded
era -- whieh is a good term. Bob -- the n:aSOll we had trouble with workforce housing is hecause we \veren't smart
enough to build units like this in the non-gilded period. So as \vc behave in this non-gilded period, I would like to
see us create this.
The reality of it is once the)' come out the gale, they may start off' in that price range and the markct may
take thcm olT. The)' may go sky high or they may' go down.
MR. GOLDMEIER: The point I was trying to make earlier is these are truly not af1()rdablc, quote,
unquote. affordable units. These (Ire moderately' priced units j(x people at the median income of the state at the
lowest and the median income of the county.'. whieh is 22 perccnt higher than the median income of the state. So
they are not alTonhlb]e ill a true sense l)!'thc word.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFFR: /lut hy '" Illaking you come oul of' the starting gale with these small
units that cost a lot less I'm sure tn huild th,lIlthe olher ones you're glling to have, gives us a hetter edge that there
(sic) might he within ,\ prilT range in lhe future tha! lhese peop!l: could still use them, still afford them.
MR. CiOU1MFIFR: We have no prohlem offering them 10 te"ehcrs, and especially at Seacrest, and other
people because they'd represent a logiea] -- ~/ou know, this is a sort or a centra] locatiotl, this development. And
tl1at represents a market. Ilut I \\!llu]d like to offer the units to those people anyway and--
COMMISSIUNER SCIIII:FU{: I'm done.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: (lkay, Ihank you, Mr. Cioldmeier.
D<.lVid. you Iwd sOlllething?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, I do. I'd like to point out th"t there's a dif'krenec between the Meridian circumstance
<.ll1d this particular circlllllstance. <Ind that is significant.
I"he (i~1P requires the provisic1ll or the afl()nbble \\orkl(1rce !lousing. "}"]1<It \vas not the case for the
Meridian proJect.
I will tell you that Ill)' opinion is that iryou add language to the PUD that says. similar to \vhat Meridian
did. irthcy off"cr those units fur a certain period oftilllC. ifthcy'rc ullsllccesslld thcy don't have to provide them,
that that is inconsis1cnt with the (i1\1P requin:"lllent.
SOllldhing else I wanted to mention. I want to ofler up sOlllething. I think we1ve all heard loud and clear
the community docs not want the nJ1{m.lablc workforce hOllsing here. Ordinarily the position I would take is don't
put the carl bcJ{lrc thc horse. Bul because this is an unusual circulllstance, I \vnuld throw this out for your
consideration. that you may wish 10 include \vilhin the PUD a statcment to the elTed that if the subdistrict upon
\vhich this zoning is relying should be ,llllendcd il) no longer require allordablc workforce housing, that this PUD
would no longer be suhject to tll,lt requirelllent.
\Vllat that (ICCOlllplishes is it' amI when that subdistrict gets approved -- modified at some point in the
Page 66 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 178 of 407
future to eliminate the affordable workf()rce requirement, the applicant would not have to come in and go through
a PUD amendment process to remove that if we put that language in up front
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David,
MR. WEEKS: Actually, one more thing, because it goes back to some of the discussion of the details of
the affordable housing,
Again, because of the different circumstances here, you don't have the companion agreement that you
ordinarily would have, the affordable workf()rce housing density bonus agreement, which has the details of the
time limitation of the ownership, of the number of bedrooms and the number of units and so forth, All of that
detail is not before you today.
And as Mr. Goldmeier had mentioned, that was a significant issue between the applicant and staff, We
went round and round on that, and ultimately camc up with the language that's before you today, And as has
already been stated, we think that -- ultimately stalf agreed that that is reasonable because of the current economic
conditions and the fact that we don't know when this projcct will get developed.
So defening tbose details for that agreement of whatever they may be to a point in time when they're
closer to actually developing the project'"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David,
MR, GOLDMEIER: Which would be closer to building pennit time,
CHAIRM AN STRAIN: Members of the Commission, we are supposed to bc in discussion after the
closing of the public hearing to try to get to a resolution on this pr~ject.
Are any of you allY closer to a resolution on this project? This has gone on for six hours, so rm very
willing to consider stopping it at any point I'm trying to make the record as open as possible so Mr. Pritt believes
he had as fair of a hearing as he could possibly have. I've not limited people to time O[ discussions, and we've
basically had (] very open conversation here today. But at some point we have to come to a conclusion.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: I'll make a motion,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you lecl you're ready j(,r a motion, go ahead, give it a fly,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we l<llward PUDZ-2004-AR-6829, the Davis Preserve
MPUD, with a recommendation of approval with the stipulations you made, except for the one requiring thc
clubhouse regulations 10 be on the commercial site.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is therc a second I,"' discussion -- Mr. Midney made a second,
Okay. Mr. Schiller, we had 21 or 22 recommendations.
COMMISSIONER SClIIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought there might be morc discussion not along the lines that Mr. Murray
\\'as going OIl the af1()1"dab1e housing but along the lines of rcmoving thc rcquirement altogether.
Did you include that as a part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I believe that the ammlable -- even though we're not gilded
period, what we build no\v is what's going to be available in the gilded period. So l'm in favor of keeping it in.
And I think it would be against the GMP to take it ont.
('OMM1SSIONER MIDNEY: And I agree with that on my second,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we'll go into discussion on the motion.
So basically' the issues that I read off that were maybe inconsistencies or needed clarifications in the
docUlnent. how did you plan on handling the parking reference 10 internal to the site?
I rcad some or these as statements !{)r discussion, no nne discussed them. So now we have to go back and
discuss them because your motion included them, yet they wercn't points.
COMMISSIONER SCII1FFFR: Correct.
And the reason Pm in favor of going on, I know the architectural standard's going to get them down the
road because, you're not alknved to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what are YOLl saying, that either the parking intelllal to the site is -- the master
plan is accept<lblc the way it is, or is not?
Page 67 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14. 2010
Page 179 of 407
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, And that's why I was asking Ray questions as to who's going to
trump who. Ray assured me thai Ihe architectural standards will still exist and that this plan will not give them
something that they can back out of those,
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, l'lf the record, the architectural standards have not been deviated from in this
PUD, so therel(lre they will apply. The master plan that is attached is a conceptual plan, It is showing parking
arrangement conceptually, but when it comes 10 Site Development Plan, we're going to apply the architectural
standards, And they will have to provide the parking on the other side,
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so--
MR. BELLOWS: But I think one of the e<lutions that we must realize is will the setbacks still allow for
the structure to be placed the way it is if you have to nwve -- if they have to shili the building closer to the road to
put thc parking on the other side. That's the one tlllng I don't think has been rcally studied yet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFfER: Yeah, there's a 10101' it we don't know what the final plan's going to be.
'I'hat \\'as problem number olle fl"om the beginning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But therein lies <I problem with your motion, I mean, I guess if we don't know
what this is going 10 be. (Jlld I read off 20 or 22 isslIes of cotlccm, why arc we voting to approve it without
stipulations to bring those COI1CClllS ill line that are very specific? Or, lacking that, simply demanding a
continuance and come back when they can better answer our questions. or voting for denial hecause the questions
can't be ans\vcred.
That's kind of \vhat I'm trj'ing 10 ligure Ollt \vhcrc we're going here, Brad. I mean, I understand you want
to see something happentouay, hut rm not sure we're ripe for that.
COMMISSIONER SCHII'FER: Okay. I mean, mayhe I'm not aware of what we can do, I mean, I'm
under the impression, first of alL the ncighborhoo<l thc traditional neighborhood, I don't see it yct. But I have to
take that leap of ll1ith with the -- it's going to he reslllvcd ill the SDP.
If you think we ean resolvc that prior to rcleasing it from us, thell I'd lovc to keep it here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think we Gilll give the developer the option of trying to meet our eoncems
and coming haek to us with a better plan with more detail and the propl:r. I guess, compatibility addressed issues
that we're asking about. or taking a vote on \\'hatevcr \\';:1)' it may go I<Jr not h.l\'ing a plan as, let's say, presentable
to the manners of addressing the issues that we're concerned <lhout as it is, as you'vc heard it. So it's a plan that's
lacking the depth Ihat we need.
C< lMM ISSIONER Sl'IIIITI:R: Ilidll't Mr. Prill hack olf ol'that" Didn't he --
CIIi\IRMAN STRAIN: Well. he said no, carlier. I'm telling him one more time. And if you want to,
we'lllct it Ill'.
(io ,1I1C,H.I. J'vldiss,l.
COMMISSIUNER AIILR"': I thmk pari of thc concelll is there's so many oplions that can be done with
this plan. And it seems likl: wc\"(~ becn able 10 narrow down likc committing the 47 units to the commcrciaL So
that somcwhat limits. I think. S01lle ll/'the co]]ccrns like J\1r. Murray had with the differcnt commercial uses.
But there's st111 a lot ol"qucstlollS rCI1l<lInlng wherc we can't really determine where this 1S going to go.
J'm also W()lHkring -- or JclL maybe Y'OLJ C~lIl clarify' tlte afflJrdablc housing aspect, because it seems we
have dilTerill!! opinions nrthe con!1ie!.
CII;\IRM;\N STRAIN: Well. alld tl1c other thlllg we ought to h<lve ill eOllsideratioll is that we have to
send tlte best doculllcnt WL' can f<.w\v;mi 10 the l3u,lrd ()/,COUllty Commissiullers.
II' thcy get this document as it shows ill here today. what do you think's going to happen at their level?
'{ou think that they're going to spelld scvcn hours ddxlting this issue and the fine tuning or that plan? They're
going to S<lY IlO.
They' should come to us in <l heek or a lot hetter, I guess. better reference or better quality than what we1ve
gotlell.
And likc I said in the beginning, we should never have gotten this fill' with some of these issues still not
addressed, nlld I'm very cClllcerned that it has gotten this f~lr.
Mr. Klatzk<-nv?
~HC KLATZK(J\\i: \\/hatmy recollllllcndation to the Hoard orCoullty Commissioners is going to be, to
Page 68 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Af1enda Itern No. 8A
Decernber 14, 2010
Page 180 of 407
kick this back anyway if you kick the can down the road, because this isn't right for their consideration, okay,
That's one,
Two, you can't kick this to the Board of County Commissioners until you're comfortable that this is -- this
meets the Growth Management Plan. And I've heard questions from several of you as to whether different aspects
of this are consistent with the Growth Management Plan, So you've got to get past that before we get to
everywhere else anyway, and you're not there yet.
And as far as the question goes as far as the affordable housing, this subdistrict requires affordable
housing, Now, I was there when the Board did what they did, okay, and [ understand what the process was like,
and perhaps we could have better processes in the future,
But there was an awliJllot of sentiment in the community back then that you couldn't get teachers in town,
you couldn't get fire folks in town, you couldn't get sherilfs in town because they were all overpriced out of the
market.
And, you know, the Board in a lot of dillerent areas, a lot of different PUD's were requiring these things,
Unfortunately this is in the GMP and not in an ordinance base, so it's very ditJicult to change, .
I thought David made a very interesting recommendation her" where you can put in the PUD if down the
road the Board decides to take this out of the GMP, then they won't have to come back and amend their PUD, I
think that might save some time down the road,
But light now we're stuck \vith it. And if \ve take the position that ies not enforceable because it's
inconsistent, you're opening up this developer to challenges all the years down the road by somebody who wants
alTi:Jrdable housing. And I don't know how they're going to do business that way, They need a level of certainty,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONI'R CARON: WelL I tried once to oller Mr. Pritt the opportunity to continue and come
back here with solutions to some of these issues. I'll give you olle more shot.
MR. PIUIT: May we have a couple of minutes'! I need to talk to my client.
And before we do that. there were 21 other issues that 1 think that we had pretty much entered into a
stipulation 011.
Now, 1 don't kllow why one issue bas to keep this running around. We've been here since 2004, and at
some puint we need to have some closure.
This came up last night. This came up last night aller all of these years, And we need some closure, And
if we can't gel closure. \vc need to have the Board of COLlllty Commissioners give us closure on that issue.
You heard me this morning, and I know that you didn't like hearing it. And it sounds like you're agreeing
with staff. But you heard me say this morning that this is not -- that under the plain meaning of1he language that's
in thcrc, we arc okay on this issue.
Now, I don't understand \vhy you could not approve it and then present to the Board of County
Commissioners. If you have OJ conccm \\'ith that one item out or 22, pass that along to the Board of County
Commissioncrs and let them make the ultimale decision.
Because really, 'vvhat wc're IYll1g to do 1S discern what the County CommiSSIOn had Il1 its mind at the time
they did it. The only testimony you have on that is II-om Mr. Goldmeier, a little bit fi-0111 me, and some from Jeff
Klatzkow. And what we nccd to do is get on with it. I don't know, this is a different era --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, the question was, I tlJiuk Ms. Caron wanted to ask you if you wanted a
continuance and noVo/ you're saying no, right?
MR. KLATLKOW: Mr. Pritt, l'm telling you right now, my recommendation to the Board of County
COlllmissioners is going to hc to kick this back to the Planning Commission, all right because I don't think this is
ready for their considcrat ion. ')/ou don't have to consent to it, but thafs going to he my recommendation anyway.
'{ou can get a date certain right now.
MR.I'IUIT: Well, I'm eoncemed about what your reasoning is then,
MR, KLA TZKOW: There are too many outstanding questions here in my mind --
MR, PRITT: There's one.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, there's not. There's several outstanding questions, Mr. Pritt.
MR. CiOLDMEIER: Basically wc've agreed to everything clse, The only thing is we have the question
Page 69 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
I\genda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 181 of 407
about internal and externaL And I was there throughout the whole process, And I can't tell you what was in the
heads of people but I can tell you that this would not bc a traditional neighborhood design property if you flipped
the buildings the other way and had the parking lots showing -- lronting on the street So you have that built-in
conflict
We'll work with you in any way we can to make it a better project. But the last time we were here about a
year ago we were asked to move a building oil of the -- by this Board wc were asked to move a building off of the
comer of County Barn and Davis Boulevard because it was tuo prominent And this Board had asked us not to
have the buildings so close to the comer because of the prominence of the building, and that's what we did,
And we've -- and, you know, it's not only the six years we've spent, it's the tens of thousands of dollars in
rcsubmittal fees which we've had. and continuance fees. and advcl1ising. We've had four neighborhood meetings.
And--
MR, KLATZKOW: There's going 10 be no additional fees with a continuance, all light'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL look at, Ilhink their answer's been no to that Let's just get this moved on,
Mr. Schiffer')
MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, ii'we can work this one problem out. I think we're there,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL your statement that we -- I mean, I've got the master plan you submitted
back in M8Y of 2009. It didn't have any buildings 011 it. So I can't recall the discussion you're now referring to
without going back and looking at the minutes.
But be that as it may, I think I understand your position. YOll feel that we can make a recommendation
with the exception orthe parking and thClll1l0VC it on to the Board or County C0111missioners in some manner.
MR, PRITT: Ccm I il,k--
MR, (iOLDMEIER: With the intent o['working it out.
MR. PRITT: Let me ask Il,r one clarilieation, because Mr. Klatzkow has said something different lrOln
\\/hat I undcrstand 1l'0111 the planning 'itaJr.
II' this had to come back again one more timc on a cnntilluance, there's no fee? Because we've paid a lot
of rcsuhmitttll fees.
MR. KLATZKO'W': No, there's no fee. 'W'c1re going 10 have a dale ecrtain and we're just going to come
back.
MR. PRITT: And is there a ICe t(l!' thc continuance'!
MR KLAT7KOW: No,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lime ti.ilmc in which il has 10 be heard, though.
Rav')
f'vlR. I3FLLU\\'S: Uur ICe code !l;:IS <l continuance ICe during the -- if it's continued hy the applicant
during the meeting. I !owevcr, if the Planning Commission recommends a continuance, maybe the fee docsn't
apply.
COMMISSIUNICR MURR/\ '1': Mow It'--
('ljAIRMi\N STRA1N: Mr. Murray, Just hold on a second.
COMMISSIONER MLJRRA Y: Inwde the motion.
CIIAIRMi\N STRAIN: Tilere", a motion already on the tloor. Mr. Murray, so until we get done with that
motion \ve c;:m't have mlotlllT OIlC.
(io ahead.
CUMMISSIONER SCHIFFLR: JetL the question -- you know, my concern on this project is the
aesthetics or it and is il ill f~lct a traditiol1(J! villa!,!e and all 111,1t sturr. Illlw 1~lr can the Planning Commission go?
I mean, we talked about it a ]01 today, you Ire right. But the impression I got from the conversation was it's
not up to LIS, it's going to he solely up to the Board.
MR. KLi\T7KOW: No, if the board wants--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not the board, I'm SOllY, to the staffduring.the SDP process.
MR. KLi\TZK()W: Right. And what I said Oil thilt olle. iJ'il's the pleasure of the Board to ask you to
review tile site development plan, tiley' lwve that discretion. You can make that as pat1 of your recomnlcndations
if you think ills impOltant.
Page 70 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 182 of 407
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. As the motion maker /'m going to make that recommendation
that the Planning Commission does review it. It may fail the vote, Mark,
Paul, do you --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I go with your motion,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Brad, you had made a motion to recommend approval subject to the various
stipulations that we've read earlier in the record,
In the discussion some of those stipulations weren't stipulations, they were points of discussion that we've
now had some discussion 011.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But most --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney seconded all those issues, And now you're adding a
recommendation to add a review of the SDP by the Planning Commission to the Board of County Connnissioners,
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney seconded that.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head affinnatively,)_.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm trying to keep order because somebody's going to be looking at this
sooner or later and it has to be as orderly as possible. And I surely don't want a cluttered up record, although this
one1s going to be noted for that.
MR, PRITT: ['or what it's worth, if we're coming back to talk about one issue, Mr. Goldmcier would go
along \vith that.
MR. GOLDME1ER: With no cost.
If we're coming back to talk about a single issue with no additlonal costs involved, 1 wouldn't mind
working out that one issue. Although I think we're going to need some assistance ii-om the Board also, because, as
I said before, I see a conflict between \\'hat you're suggesting and what a traditional neighborhood design is, and
we'd like to resolve that conflict going in instead of wind lip in the same place we arc today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to be honest with you. this should have had been resolvcd before it got here
today, Wc should ncvcr, cver have heen put in this position, to have all thcse issues subject to the SDP that were --
in a manner that we could have resolved some ofthe111 tod~lY. especislly with a new design.
Sl) I understand your point. Thank you. And we vvilI celiainly take it into cll11sideratiol1.
MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you.
By tbe way, Mr. Strain, I just want to compliment you on your ability to bring order to these things, to see
all of the -- to piek out all of these issues. to keep track of them, where I've even been lost. And I appreciate your,
you kno\\'. overseeing the process in the manner you arc.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Bul I think I'm getting rcally lost right now.
We lc/\ olfwith Mr. SchilTcr and Mr. Mldney making a motion. There's been some discussion,
Ms. Ilomiak'?
COMMISSIONER 1I0MIAK: Some of these problems tbat are listed bere, trying to put community
center in the commercial. doesn't it just -- kind or the problem may he that it's just too dense, the density is too
great for that area'! I mean, it's not compatible vvith the other communities sUlTounding it as far as tbe density or
units per acre. Maybe that's the problem. you canlt get to the traditional ncighhorhpod because ifs just -- you Ire
not giving them much ror amenities like a pool and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If densit)' is an issue and you have an idea on huw to make it more compatible or
balance it out, you need to state it and ask the motion llwker to consider adding it to their Illotion. and the second.
and then we continue with it there.
But thaes the only \vay we get there fhHl1 here. \\ie have to respond 10 this motion. And any issues like
you have are relevanl, they need to be talked about, bul you need to be ablc to put them in a manner that can be
added and voted on.
So did you have -- did you want to {l,llow it up wilh further discussion'?
COMMISSIONER IIOMIAK: I don't, because I don't have an answer. I just know that the minimum is
91 units and we're way over that.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any discussion'!
Page 71 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2, 2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
P,genda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 183 of 407
Mr. Midney')
COMMISSIOl\ER MIDNEY: Yeah, the reason I'm supporting the motion, we've talked a lot about
afl()rdable housing. To me it's a non-issue, My l'lI11ily of five makes a lot less than $57,000 a year but I don't
think we're a detriment to our neighborhood, I think that is not dependent on the income level, it's dependent on
the character of the family,
And as long as the housing stays cheap, these affordable housing stipulations are not going to be
necessary, But in tbe lliture when housing prices nOllllalize and it becomes difficult once again for teachers,
nurses, law enl()J'cement pcople to find housing close to their jobs, the al'l(lrdable housing may help.
And I have conlidence that tbe developer wilt develop a good traditional neighborhood design and that it
can be made to work, so that's why rIll SllPPol1ing the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else'!
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So Mr. Schiffer, you don't want to have this continued')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WclL I mean, I know something maybe they don't know, and that's the
architectural standards. And I'm not going to \VOITY (thou! this parking lot.
Is the parking lot the main issue that everybody \V3nts 10 bring it back on the intemal?
Obviously I brought it up. I know it's 110t the way the words go. There's also 110t a grid. There's also a
couple of other things that it's not. h's not that hig a parking lot. So -- it's landscaped in the center. If they bul1er
it, it probably' \\'on'1 be the end orthe world.
Barr)' actual 1)' kind or cOllvinced me that if you focus everything on the internal street then maybe it
makes sense to focus the building-s tlwt \\'<lY ton.
So I'm not thai li'caked out aboul the parking lot. And like I said, thcre are requirements on placement of
parking ill the architectural standards that wouldntt alhm.' them to do exactly what they have anyway. So they're
going to be revising it and weill see it \vhen it comes hack.
CHAIRM^l\ STRMN: Ms. Caron, did vou linish'!
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ycah, ljusl wanled to lind oul--
CIIAIRM^N STRAIN: Ms. ^hcm"
('( JMMISSIONER M IERN: Corby had lllentioned the additional buffering at the li'ont. Was that in your
list?
CI IAIRMAN STR^IN: I read this as a point of discussion that the intenml parking reference to the site in
the (iMP was something we needed to cliscu~s bec<lusc it could he resolved hy statTs comment, either hy moving
the buildings or hy Pl)ssihly looking <II the hulTers and herms as .:1 solution. All.d I had suggested maybe a
cross-section to look at.
But it was ,\ point ofdiscu~sio]].not (l stipulatlolL
COM1vIlSSIONI':R SClIIFlTR: But 111 tlwt diseussiont!Jcrc was -- you said that that's what would have
to be done to make it appear to hc internal. I mC':lIl, tn havc it come hack ':lIld have a dehate over the word internal
1'111 not P':1l1icuJ':lrl.y looking !or\v.:ml to.
('II^IRM^N STRAIN: ^nytliillg clse fi'OIll anybody'!
(No responsc.)
CII^IRM^N STRAI"i: WelL therc's going Il) hc tiOI1l111C, 'IS youlllight have expected.
rill going to he ]lot supporting the motion. I'm 11(11 going to support it because 1 fed it is inconsistent with
tile compatibility' requircmcnts or Flori(i<J Statu{c ] 63.31l)4.~.^. 3.B. It's inconsistent with the Future Land Use
Elemellt 5.4. IlIconsistel1l with the I.IJC 407.02, B.I '"Id 2, IU, IJ.F alld (i.
I helicve the I-lousing Element Policy' 1.4 h,lS an internal inconsistency with the requirements of the
affordable housing of this project. r /Cel I-lousing Element 1.4 does not meet tile requirements of Florida Statute
I (,3.3177.6.F.I.C i.
And I believe all those incompatibilities arc a rcsult of the stipulations (hat we had talked about that have
1I0t been t(lllnd 011 the docllment that we had ill li'ont of us (oday for those that should have been, And by should
have been, I'lll lllc8ning a better by'out of the plan, the dement, the parking being intemal to the site -- or I'm
sorry, yeah, the parking heing intcmal to the site or some buffcrs and berms between the buildings. We've seen
Page 72 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14,2010
Page 184 of 407
nothing to support that.
We've not seen the recreation areas for the residents.
The setbacks to the roadway need to be refined,
The distance between the buildings need to be relined,
Had failed to reference the three-story maximum brought out at the NIM,
The lee simple standards were missing for the townhouses,
The tract lines were missing from the diagram,
The reference to public streets, there are no public streets, that we had to make a clarilication on that
The townhouse was missing as a permitted use, although it was on the development standards table,
The break-up of the buildings was acknowledged but not shown on the plan that was provided to us,
There was a clarification needed to Page 14 to modify the Affordable Housing Agreement That seemed
to be rather important and should have been done bcl(lre this meeting.
And the l()otnote was missing that can now he instituted tfom the table {()r the commercial uses,
And I do believe the density is highcr than is compatible with the neighborhood, especially if the
alTordable housing is eliminated. lt should be at least lowered to a value reflecting that elimination,
Those are my reasons for voting no 011 this particular motion.
Mr. Schi l1er?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, aren't some of those things, the density is not one, and maybe
there's others, but most of those arc things that we discussed. they agreed. And when we have the sumnlary, you
know, when we see it agnin, those changes should be in the plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, some things, as you know, cannot be revoted on in consent. Some of these
issues I think wonlt necessarily he answered to everyone's satist~lclioll on the consent level.
For example, Ihe plan that would evolve showing how the buildings arc split up, possibly the setbacks, the
buffers, the cross-section, hovv to show everything is internal versus external. I don't know what they'll come back
with.
But if we make this to consent you kllLn.\' we cannot re-hear it on consent. So we're stuck with just
accepting it as a response to our needs, and that's what I'm cOllcemcd about.
COMMISSIONER SClIlFFER: Why not'! For example, Me. Pritt said he's going to submitthc plan that
shows the building broken up. Non-issue once he does that. I mean, I -- most of those things on the table they
never said no to, so -- hut ;:lIlyway, let's just vote, move 011.
CIIAIl~MAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you want to make a comment, DOI1l,"?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not going to be SUPpLlliing the motion because I don't think that this
plan is ready !(Jr prime time. loiTered twice for it to come back so that we would have something that would
resolve some of the issues that were brought out and that we would know.
.Iusl getting it hack on consent I think Commissioner Strain is right, does us no good. Because if we have
any questions then, we're still -- you kIlOW, wc1re left not to be able to do anything other than pass it along.
I also have a great deal of concern about the overall density of this proje<.:1. That's why 1 asked Ms.
Deselem to givc us thc densities surrounding the project. I think ;1 is out or scale, espceiaUy ir afl(,rdable housing
goes away. And I can't suppOli the motion the way it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any liuihcr discussion')
(No responsc,)
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion's been made for a stipulated approvaL AU those in favor of the
motion, signify by saying a)'e.
COMM1SSIUNER SCIIIFFER: Aye,
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Raise your hands, how's that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER 1\HDNEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two')
All those opposed, same sign.
Page 73 of 74
Excerpt from
September 2,2010 eepe
Davis Reserve, PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Aqenda Item I~o 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 185 of 407
COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating,)
COMMISSIONER EilERT: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER IIOMIAK: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating,)
Ukay. Iwo against, six -- 1 mean six against, two in 1'avor. The motion fails.
This will go forward \v1111 a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. pRITI': I would like 10 ask if the ll1otionthat came forward conceming a continuance until the next
month. So f~lI' you\r denied it --
CI L\IRMAN STRAIN: It's too late now, sir. You had that opportunity bef()re we voted, Once we voted
MR, PRITT: I did ask !c)r it sooner. And you niled it out of order.
CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: I'm sorry?
J\1 R. PRITT: There was a motion made and YOLl ruled it oul of order.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the motion maker -- we had a motion ,on Ihe l100r that was being
discussed. An)/\vtly. l\lL Pritt. I understand your argulllent --
MR. PRITT: Whal docs the County Alto!'IJcy say') Do you SUPp0l1Ihat')
MR. KL\TZKUW: I g"ve y"u so many opp0I1unities here, Bob, and you waited till they took the vote.
rvlR. PRITT: )\~J, I look the opportunities. I said that we were willing to do that.
CIIJ\IIUv1AN STR/\IN: P1ensc. audicIlCl:. ).rou1re going 10 have to remain quiet.
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairll1'"1, it's your discretion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My discretion is wc've takcn the vote, ii's over wilh. Mr. Pritt, you just have to
do the best you can in front or the Board or COllnty Commissioners.
MR. PRITT: I'll do Iltal. Ihank vou, sir.
CIIAIRMAN STR/\IN: Ihank you. SIr.
Page 74 of 74
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 186 of 407
Item Vl.A.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4. 2009
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.:
Petition Name:
Applicant/Developer:
Engineering Consultant:
Environmental ConsuItant:
PUD Rezone: PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Davis Reserve PUD
Collier Davis, LLC
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc,
EarthBalance@
n. LOCATION:
The subject property is an undeveloped 22,8" acre parcel located in the south east
comer of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
Ill. DESCRlI)TION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
Surrounding propertics are developed or currently under construction, Residential
developments occur across Davis Blvd, and County Barn Road.
ZONING
DESCRIPTION
N-
Right-of~way. thcn Bretonne
ParkPUD
Davis Blvd" then Terracina
Grande, a multi-story
residential building within
the Glen Eagle Devel-
opment
S-
Estates
CFPUD
Berean Baptist Church
Seacrest School
E-
CFPUD
Seacrest School
w-
Right-ot~way, then RMF-6(4)
County Bam Road, then
Napoli condominiums
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 187 of 407
Page 2 of It
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project is proposing a development that will consist of a maximum of 286
dwelling units and a maximum of 35,000 square feet of commercial/office uses on
23010 acres, An Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement is proposed for this
development that will set aside 20 percent (57 dwelling units) of the units as
workforce housing units (27 units) for a total bonus density of 5,0 dwelling units per
acre, The Conceptual Master Plan depicts the location of buildings, parking areas,
landscape areas, storm water management areas and 5.29010 acres of preservation
area, which is located along the eastem and southem property boundaries,
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Future Land lJse Element: The subject property lies within the Urban-Mixed-Use
District and since June 7, 2005 - the Davis Boulevard/County Bam Road Mixed-
Use Subdistrict.
FLUE provisions state that, "this Subdistricf provides for development that
incorporates traditional neighborhood and mixed-use neighborhood design
featurcs, as well as recommendations of the Community Character Plan (CCP).
These include: pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly streets; a park, small
plazas and other open spaces; and, a mix of residential and neighborhood
coml1lercial USeS, Iutegration of residential and comnlercial uses in the same
building is cncouragcd,"
These rcquiremcnts go on to statc, "The commcrcial component shall be
interconnected with the residential component, and the commercial component
shall be conveniently located to serve residents in the nearby surrounding area,
Pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided so as to afford access from
neighboring communities to the commercial uscs, residential neighborhood(s),
and open spaces and paths within the Subdistrict",
The Petitioner seeks to establish rr fvlixed-Usc Planned Unit Developnlent on the
subject property, with 286 residential units, resulting in a requested density of
12.5 units pcr acre. 229 orthese units would comprise the residential component,
while 57 affordable and workforce residential units would be located above
ground floor commercial establishmcnts in mixed-use buildings, (The Petitioner
proposes to attain (his 12.5 unit-per-acre density by applying a density bonus
awarded for providing afl()rdablc and workforce housing,) The application packet
includes a proposed At1(lfdable Workforce Housing Density Bonus Agreement
(A WHDBA).
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 188 of 407
Page 3 of ] I
This Subdistrict is made up of two distinctly different areas, tracts, or
"components" - the Commercial component, and the Residential component _
and developing them is governed by distinctly different provisions.
Please note that staff has assessed the proposal at length and believes the
Petitioner's interpretation of certain Subdistrict provisions is inconsistent
with the FLUE. Staff reads the Subdistrict provisions for this Mixed-Use
Planned Unit Development as expressly limiting residential development to
234 units, resulting in a density of 10.25 units per acre, based upon a
consistent application of the density bonuses requested. 187 of these 234
dwellings would comprise the residential component, while no less than 47
affordable and wOl'kforce residential units would be located above ground
floor commercial establishments in mixed"use buildings,
Three significant issues are standing points of disagreement between Petitioner's
interpretation and Comprehensive Planning staffs assessment, as follows:
,/ Whether the overall density is limited because additional density cannot be
derived from locating affordable-workforce housing in the commercial part of the
PUD, where bonuses are already awarded;
,/ Whether density bonuses can be derived from affordable-workforce
housing units that are not geographicaliy iocatec..i in the resideniial part of the
PUD; and
,/ Whcther density blending, as residential density generated from
calculations including the commercial tract can be transferred to the residential
part of the PUD,
Staff believes the provisions of the Davis Boulevard/County Bam Road Mixed-
Use Subdistrict are being applied as adopted, The petitioner disagrees with staffs
application uf the provisions of this Subdistrict. In an effort to change staffs
position, the Petitioner asked the County Attorney's Office (CAO) to provide an
opiniun regarding the Board of County Commissioners' intentions based upon
Minutes of BCC deliberation on this Subdistrict, and the pel1inent provisions in
the Subdistrict. After review and analysis of the Minutcs and Subdistricf
language, the CAO found them to be inconclusive with respect to the BCe's
intent. Petitiuncr then requestcd that each ofthesc three points of disagreement be
returned to the BCC to discuss their original intent, as part of this proposed re-
zoning action, Staff believes the Subdistrict text accurately reflects the BCC's
action in adopting it.
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 189 of 407
Page 4 of II
Conservation & Coastal Manal!ement Element:
In accordance with Objective 2.1 (d), until the County's Watershed Management
Plans are completed, all development located within areas identified on Figure I
within the CCME shall be evaluated to determine impacts to natural wetlands,
flowways, or sloughs, The Objective also states that the County shall require the
applicant fo avoid direct impacts to fhese natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs
or, when not possible. to ensure any impact is minimized and compensated for by
providing the same conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact.
The evaluation provided in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identified
three isolated wetlands within the project site, two of which will be preserved as
part of a larger contiguous preserve, The third, due to its size, proximity to Davis
Boulevard, and location within the project site, will be directly impacted by
development as allowed by Policy 6.2.4, As required by Objective 2.1 (f), all
necessary state and federal cnvironmental permits will be required prior to
issuance of a final development order.
~
Objective 2.2, of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality
standards",
To accomplish that, policy 2,2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and
cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff. stormwater systems should be designed
in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving wafers and an
attempt is made to enhance the timing. quantity, and quality of fresh water
(discharge) to the estuarine system",
This project is consistent with the objectivcs of policy 2,2.2 in that it attempts to
mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing
lakes and interconnccted wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak
!low allenuation during slonn events.
The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of
the Conservation & Coastal Management Element. for the following reasons:
Twenty-five percent (25 '%) of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on-
site and be protected by a permanent conservation casement prohibiting further
development. The preservation of native vegetation includes canopy, understory
and ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible,
The applicant is proposing to use the preservc to store treated storm water when
run-off exceeds one and (lI1e-hal finches. The proposed preserve is comprised
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 190 of 407
Page 5 of 11
solely of jurisdictional wetlands and uplands with hydric soils, Hydrological
indicators show that seasonal high water levels occasionally pond approximately
12 inches above surface within the wetlands on site, and based on the site
elevations provided in the EIS, would also inundate the uplands on the property
during this time, Based on soil investigations, typical wet season water level is
about 6 to 12 inches below surface. In accordance with Policy 6, LJ (5) (b), receipt
of treated storm water discharge into preserves is allowed provided such use does
not result in adverse impacts to naturally occurring native vegetation or harm to
any listed species, Policy 6,LJ (5) (b) requires discharge of treated stormwater to
preserves having wetlands to meet water quality standards as set forth in Chapter
62-302 F,Ac' Based on the information by the applicant, staff find the project to
be consistent with Policy 6, LJ (5) (b), Final design of the project will be
permitted through the SFWMD when the project comes in for final development
order.
Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans are
required at the time of Site Development Plan/construcfion plan submiftaL In
accordance with Policy 6,LJ (6), the management plan shall include methods to
address control and treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management,
storm water management, and maintenance of permitted facilities. Preserve areas
shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Planf CounciL Prohibited exotic vegetation
shall be removed from the entire develupment Juring construction and the site
shall be maintained free of prohibited cxotics in perpetuity,
Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required af the
time of Site Development Plan/construction plan submittal, and will be required
to meet the minimum planting area requirement pursuant to Policy 6.1.7 and the
Land Development Code.
The requirement j()r an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy
6.1,& has been satisfied,
.J urisdiclional wetlands have been identified as re(juired in Policies 6.2,1 and'
6,2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2,4, the County shall require appropriate agency
permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting sile
improvements (Site Development Plan/construction plans), As stated in Policies
6.2.3 and 6,2,4, whcre permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts
to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and re(juire mitigation for such
impacts, this shall bc deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation
of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area, except for
wetlands that are part of a Watershed Management Plan preserve area,
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 191 of 407
Page 6 of II
In accordance with Policy 6,2,6. required preservation areas are identified on the
PUD master plan, Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the
PUD document. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity
detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish
and wildlife conservation and preservation,
Wildlife surveys for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 are included in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Wildlife habitat management plans for
listed species are required at the time of Site Development Plan/construction plan
submittal, where applicable. No listed wildlife species have been identified on the
project site,
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Stormwater Manae:ement:
Davis Reserve sits within the Lely Canal Basin and according fo Collier County
Ordinance 2001-27 governing discharge amounts, the site is limited to an
allowable discharge rafe of 0,06 cfs per acre, The site also sits within the limits of
the Lely Area Storm water Improvement Project (see attached LASIP map),
The petitioner's engineer has stated that the project will apply for a SFWMD
pcnl1it dUiing the Site Developnlcnt design phase. Sediun 8.06.03 0.2. of the
Collier County Land Development Code states 'The surface water management
aspects of any petition. that is or will be reviewed and permitted by Soufh Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC
except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged
into Preservcs as allowed in Section 3,05,07" Howevcr, in this case, the
engineer has stated his intention to incorporate the preserve areas into the
stormwater management system,
The proposed stormwatcr managcmcnt systcm will utilize a wet detention area
(lakc) for watcr quality detention and peak flow attenuation, The engineer
proposes a control elevation of 9.0 ft NGVD. but that elevation will need approval
from SFWMD. The engineer proposes to grade and berm the area so that all
runoff initially /lows into the lake with no direct discharge into the preserve, A
wcir will be installed and the crest of the weir will be at the water quality
treatmcnt elevation, This will force water to back up through culverts and into the
preserve area during storm peaks, The water level in the preserve will draw down
to its naturallevcl as the lake diseharges through the control structure" This
drawdown must occur in ten days or less for the project to meet SFWMD 25-year,
J-day storm event criteria.
EAC Meeling
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 192 of 407
Page 7 of ] I
LiDAR topography from January 2001 is attached, Historic flow in the area was
to the south-southwesf but as a result of County Bam Road being raised and
swaled the flow is almost directly south.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The majority of the site is vegetated with pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 411),
Topography on-site is relatively flat with elevations on-site ranging from
approximately 8.42 to 9.41 feet NOVD, Three slightly depressed wetlands occur
on the east and north sides of the property.
The majority of the site contains hydric soils (Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone
Substrate), Non-hydric soils (Boca Fine Sand) occur at the south west comer of
the site, adjacent to County Barn Road,
Wetlands:
The subject property contains approximately 2,57 acres of wetlands. These
include cypress, hydric ~.1ela!euca and 'vvet prairie. Hydrological indicators show
that seasonal high water levels occasionally pond approximately 12 inches above
the surface, Normal pool, or the typical wet season water level, is about 6 to 12
inches below surface based on soil investigations,
Approximately].53 acres of wetlands will be impacted as a result of this project
Mitigation will be provided by enhancement and preservation ofremaining on site
wetlands, Wetlands identified for preservation include those located within upland
habitats forming a large contiguous preserve, Impacts to wetlands will be assessed
using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) to determine the
amount of mitigation needed to accommodate for loss of wetland habitat, as the
project moves through permitting with the South Florida Water Managemenf
District (SFWMD). It is anfieipafed that approximately 0,8 forested freshwater
credits may be required for this project Any additional mitigation which may be
required will be provided by purchase of mitigation credits from either Big
Cypress Mitigation Bank or Panther Island Mitigation Bank,
Preservation Requirements:
Approximately 21,17 acres of native habitat occur on the subject property. These
include 18,96 acres of pine Ilatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 41 I), L17 acres of
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 193 of 407
Page 8 of I I
cypress (FLUCFC'S Code 621) and 1.04 acres of wet prairie (FLUCFCS Code
643). Also on site are approximately 1.66 acres of near monoculture of Melaleuca.
In accordance with the requirements of the Growth Management Plan and Land
development Code, 25% (5,29 acres) of native vegetation are required to be
retained on site. This is satisfied by 5.29 acres of preserve shown on the PUD
master plan, The area to be preserved is a contiguous area which closely aligns
with preserves and undeveloped land on adjacent properties, Staff visited the
property with the environmental consultant in evaluating the site for the preserve
requirement.
The Berean Baptist Church located to the soufh of the proposed project and
contains undeveloped land along the east side of the parcel. Habitats within this
undeveloped area consist of pine tlatwoods with scattered cypress, This wooded
area will align with the preservc on the south side of Davis Reserve,
The Seacrest School PUD is located to the east and south of the proposed project
The prescrve associated with the proposed Davis Reserve sife will align with the
larger (new) preserve for Seacrest Upper and Lower School, however the new
entrance road for the school frOlTI County Barn Road will bisect the preserves,
Listed Svecies:
EarthBalance@ biologists visited the site several times beginning in December
2002 through January 2005 to map on-sitc habitats. A red-cockaded woodpecker
(RCW) cavity tree survey was performed on July 23, 2004, No red-cockaded
woodpeckers or cavity trees were identified on site,
An additional listed plant and wildlife survey was conducted on October 26. 2006,
Biologists looked for evidence of nests or day beds that could be used by Big
Cypress fox squirrcl; red-cockaded woodpccker cavity trees and gophcr tortoise
burrows, In addition, a listed plant species survey was conducted, No listed
wildlife species or evidence of listed \vi!dlifc species \vere observed during this
survey,
A total of four listed plant species (Tillandsia spp,) wcre observed during the
October 26. 2006 survey, None of the plants identified are listcd federally, Most
of thc listed plants wcrc found on slash pine and cypress, A small perccntage,
were observed on Melaleuca, Density of Tillandsia species varied fhrough out the
site, the locations of which arc shown in the EIS, The applicant has proposed
relocating Tillandsia species fi'om proposed development areas to the on-site
preserve, prior to construction,
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 194 of 407
Page 9 of II
At the request of County staff, a two-day listed species survey was conducted on
August 5 and 6, 2008. The survey focused on evidence of nests or day beds that
could be used by Big Cypress fox squirrel and nest cavities that could be used by
red-cockaded woodpecker. All suitable upland habitats were also surveyed for the
occurrence of any other protected wildlife, including the presence of active or
inactive gopher tortoise burrows, No listed wildlife species or evidence of listed
wildlife species were observed during this or any of the other surveys,
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-
6829 "Davis Reserve PUD" with the following conditions:
Stormwater Manaeement:
L The petifioner is required to obtain a SFWMD ERP' or Surface Water
Management permit prior fo Site development Plan approval by Collier
County,
Environmental:
No site spccific stipulations,
EAC Meeting
Page 10 nf II
PREPARED BY:
KI,P,E.
ENGINEERING JEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
/;f-U.1
STEPHEN LENBER rER
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
. J 12M
~ ~J
KA D SELEM, AICP
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF Z.ONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
~.
SUSAN ASON
PRI IPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
, GINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Agenda lIem No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 195 of 407
:1 /){;c 08
DATE
12/9hGO?
DATE
/cJ/IO/D~
DATE'
IZ-/d -{J,f
.
DATE
EAC Meeting
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 196 of 407
Page 11 of 11
~~-
LLIAM D, LO Z, Jr., ,E., DIRECTOR,
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
,2.- t2..::qg
DATE
~
JEFF'.E, RIGHT
ASSIST" NT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
t 2-jz..+-108
DATE
APPROVED BY:
1.y~0~
II K, SCHMITT, ADMINIST ATOR, DATE
MllNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 197 of 407
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
(;rrHvtli r,L11\;li~('1lH'1l1 )ljvi:;jOll- I.ilnd Development Services Dept.
. COlllprC'lH'l1';ivl' I'L1IJJlillg 'If'cli()I\. :":BO() Norlllll(lrseslw{' DrivE' . Naples, Florida 31104
CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM
To:
Kay Desclcl11, ,'I(]), ])rillcipall)]allllcf
Zoning SCITiccs Section
From:
Curb:' SchlTudl, .\ lep, Principal Planner
(_:()111prchcllsin' I)Jannlng ScctiC)ll
Dale:
JUlle :,(). 2() 10
Subject:
, '11/1l1l' L.lIl1ll',I"t I :./OJltJ!! (/ '1 JT:) (,'()fI.lil'!I'!I~l /\0'1('111 (J\;o, ! I/;)
PETITION NUMBER: I'l '1)/"-211111\1\ (,K2')
PETITION NAME: Dayis Reser\'(' i\li\.l'd-Lsc jJl:11l11Cd lnll lk\'clo]lIlll'1l1 (.\lPl:U)
REQUEST: 'j () IT/one 22.~7J ,lcn:s (rom till' I iL';l;lll'S) zoning district !o the f\IPL1D (J\.1ixcd-L'sc Planned Unit
Dl'\'doplllClll) zO!1ing distrIct in accordance \\'ith the "lhn:-; BrHlk\'ard/( :()Ullly Barn Road J\1ixeu-Ust' Subdistrict".
The prO)lTt site l~ currelltly 11l1deH'loJ1nl. {he \Iixctl-l'se Planllcd l :nit Ikycl()p1llctH would allow for 35,UOU
squarc ket or COl1lllHTCial SP,ICC and ~_).-l- resldclltLd lIllits. I g--:: of lIwsc units would he market rate offl'rings, while
.f7 ;It"(()nbhlc re~idelltJ<ll units \\.(ltdd he located :t!J()\T ground !lo()r commcrcial l'slahlishmcllts ill [nixed-usl'
huildings, ()r Crll1tlgurnllll ollll'r 11l:111lH'r:,.
LOCATION: The :::2.K,)-acre suhject property is SllLutcd on Ihe :-;outhea,S! corner of the intcrsection of Dayis
Bouh.'\'iml (SIZ K4) at COllll1~' Ihm RO;ld, 111 SCCli()n k, T()\\'mhip )() SI)Udl, Range 2(l Last.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: Th,. I)",,, 1''''''rI'' ,\Ii'l'lll'", Plalllll'd l'l1It Development
(1\IPL'I)) appl1cllioll has becn ch;tl1~)('d :\1ld lllmlrlied 11l1111Cnlth tl111e:, S11)(:(' Its initial !lling, ThiS ite!"afion of PUU
applicll1()1l 1l1:I!er!a]s :\((ordnl SLln Illl' ()PI)(lr!llllll: t(l c(l\ll]1rl'hl'Il~l\cl: rlTle\\' these iteratj\.c changes and
nlodillClIiollS, The "1I11ibrtti('~ ,11111 the differcnces (rotl1 OllC \Trsi(lll to the lH"d became appan-'ll! dUring thi~
tll( m lugh iI1L\h-si,< :1<; fe]1( lrtnllwlo\\,
The <;ubject propcrt~' he" \\'t1 I 1111
specltlc Suhdi:,tnct withIn the l
Rr)',ld i\li:--;nl-L"<;(' ':-;uhdi"lrlct",
(:Olllp01\Clll, and the Residelltial
the dc\"clopll1Cllt or each.
the I ;-/i,/I/ dcsIgn,ltl'd land area, 11 ha:-; :IL<;o lWl'1l designated within its OWll IOGlljon-
-rhal1 ~li.\.l'd-l s(' Diqricr SllKe jUIIl'""", 2t)()5 - the "Davis Bou!cyard/Counry Barn
']\\() distllKth cliffl'ITI1! :11"(,:1<;, tLlCt~, (lr "components" -- the Commercial
(.,( llll]l( l1H'I1! -- 11l:d~l' up ! 1\1:-; ':-;uhdist rict and di:-;!lllClh- different provisions govcrn
~llbdis!r1Cl pnlvisi(l1ls regubllllg till' proposed 1\IPLT) limit residcntial dc\T]OplllCllt to ~_)4 units, resulting in an
o\Trall dl'l1siry or Il),':':'':; units per :lcre, if 110 densily ho[]use<; :lIT pursucd, :'\jo bonllses arc being pursued, PUU
m;ltcrials do 11(lt slwei(\" IHl\\' the Ilumlwr of lh\"ellings \unlld he distributed bet\\'i.'ell lilt' rcsidential component and
the CfJ1l1tJIl'lTlal, 1111'\cd-II,'W C0111P(llH'1l1.
J'[lPZ-2004-AR-G829
f1;nTis Rcscn'c Afl-'Un - RtTit'\.l' lIb
1-
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 198 of 407
FLUE provisions state that, 'trllS SulJdlstnct provides for developrnent thelt Incorporates tr'adltlonal
nelCJhbor Ilood ,lnd rnlxerj-use nelglltlorlloorj deslqrl fecttures. elS well as recormnendatlons of the
Community CllclrclCier PI,Hl leep) fI-lese (je"lqn fe,!tules Include pedestrlan-frrendly cmd bicycle-frrendly
streets, C1 peHk. SITkll1 pl,Jz"s and olller open SpeKes. "nd. " mix of reSldentlcl1 Clrld nelghborl'lood commercial
uses Integr:itlon of reSidential ZWlCJ COI"TnnerC ia! uses In the S,lme [JllIIcJ!ng IS encouraged"
These Subd.istrict provisions go on to state, "The cornrnerci,ll component shelll be interconnected with the
resldentlell component eHld tile commercr"r compomnt Slklll lle corwenrently located to serve residents In
tIle necHby surrounding ,Ilea Peejestrrzln CHId bicycle z!ccess will be provided so as to afford access from
nelgllborrng communities to tile cornrTlCr er211 uses, lesi(jcntral nergllhorlloodls), cltld open spelces elnd paths
wltl'lrn tile SulxJrstrrct'
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires Ilew developments to be compatible "vith, and complementary to, the surrounding land
uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. I t is the rl'spol1sibility of the Zoning Services staff, as part of
their r('\'iew of the petition in its entirety, to perform the compatibility analysis.
Policies 7.1 through 7.7 under Objective 7 of the Future Land Use F1cmel1t (Fl.UE) were approved on October
26,2004. This Ohjectin: and its policies adopt certain "Smart Cf()\vth" provisions into the FLUE.
Since the adoption of FLUE Objective 7 and its policies, as methods to implement such planning, the Count)' has
gone on to implement them further. Thl' "future" land development regulations \vere formulated, and then adopted
as 1"''1,L:E provisions for tllis specific, "Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road t\1ixed-Usl' Subdistrict". This
formulative process "vas Olle of Collier County's earliest opportunities to apply more of the practices found in the
'fowanl13ettcr Places - '1'11(' C:(lmmunify (]laracter Plan f(lr Cullier C()Ulltr 1~']01'ida. 'l'he Community Character Plan
provides the County \vith a policy document featuring the most useful aspects of traditional neighborhood desit.:,J11
(TN D), smart growth, traffic calming, new urb;ll1islll and other contCtnpo1"l1ry planning practices. Thc~e policies arc
implemcnted and refercnced gencrally by thc FLL~j ': pro\'istolls for tllls f\lixcd-l:se Subdistrict.
These adopted I-IU!_- PIOV!~,IUI-"iS n_"luin: that ptojects \\'ilhitl thiS Suhdistrict comply with the following standards
and criteria - alld ,-Ire I f\SI, i[ec:j I ;el:;:) In !(),'Ti-i<-i! IYfle, followed by lbrackcted sufT remarksl specific to the Davis
ReS(T\"C !\lPL'D rc(]uest.
14, D:wIS BouICV~1i(J/CUUiVV Elm-) I\o~:cj ~/llxe(J'_ \E,c)ul_KJlSlrKl
ili'!S SUlKldllO lU)TlprISC\ ._lppl ~2(n ~Iues :~l!icJ IS locJ:ed (Jl the SOUt/lt\.1St corller of tile [)(lvis
i)ouleWlrcJjCourlLy rtlln !\c,\xlll--11Cf\cctIC)i'l Ill(:' Intent Df rile SubcJistr-Ict IS 10 provlcle for d development lh:Jt
II :COI flor ,-rles :i--rc:JIII\),II(-iI " !l\iUc! ,1,1 1c1 rlIIXeC) ll<,C r ICI~J) l[)OllroueJ (je_',lqn ft'c.11uif'S, dS well dS
Ice OP1ITIC'IICLltI )11\ ~/ rile {ulilCi (el]}! (O! rWi 11_ ( fi, Ir,YIt'1 Fie 111 Illcse li'lclucJc pedesm(~lrl-fnendly cWlcl
IJiC Ylle-Ir it'lldly stlt'et\ ,1 [J. Ilk \IILII! pl,i'!(!" ,-1I1C1 uti iU upen c;p,Yf\S, (-Wle!, ,1 ITliX of rcslc1cntkJI Cine!
houci CUJ r;'I-]I(TCI, ii !..1',(,,; ,-q!C :,I-i 01 i t'Slcj(-"II!.i~)1 cllld CUI iilTiCIU,JI uses In the )clnle IJuJ!cling is
CI1CU~JI
1-/."e cOlriiner-cl,'11 (OlnrJOI-lelli SI-i(~:11 !Je II-iiel(()nriClCic\(j \N,i:ri tire Ic"xjcntlzll COlliponenl, ,-Ind !)-le corllnlelCkJI
Sli!!! IJC COIIVCI'IICfii!_'y' k)c_:tcd to "C!VC ,eSlclE'!-irS In ihe n('c!rllY SlHIULirJcJlrJQ clrT\Zi l:JecJestrlzm ,-lnd
iJlcy'Cle -Icces) '-lvii! 1)0' PICJ\/I{-JecJ \0 ,-I'; I() ,-~il(l!cJ ,1(((",', II(lIri iIJu!!JICj (CHrifliunitles 10 [he cornnlelckJI uses,
I c:\Ic1cntk~1 :_~!Ii'j upcr, '_;r)~:iCC''; ,--il,e) is VVJ: 1111 i II)(~' 'julxl!')tllct
i1rqjec!s \NlIJIIrI :1 liS JIXjl\!ii(1 ';;!.-,,-III COI
\!\/Iti, tl Ie ful!(
sLWI(Llld" :rnd entei-I;-I
CCJlnlliCIC_ lei! CUIT~pOllCJ lL
! he cornnJE'!cul CUrTIPO!iCi 11 ,:Jkilllr unt ( 01 Hity ELl!r! 1'\O:lCj ,lnd [)(~iVI':, !3oulevclJ d
Pi TDZ-2004-AR-6829
Davis Reserve MPUD - Revjew J J b
- 2 -
Agenda Item No SA
December 14, 2010
. " . Paqe 199 of 407
l'1'h1s criterion 1S met 111 the COl1ccptual1\lastcr Plan, however, relall ;]nd commercial uses \vill be oricntea toward the
site's interior, In accordance with (prcvious) Section 4.4.G.2.1 [Criterion previously stipulated to in Review No.2,
i..bting to .-\priJ 2R, 2()()6. Compliance to be \Trified during the design and Site Development Plan (5DP) stage of
the projcct.j
~?- TI-le f~onL:JQe of tile cur !irri'C'ITnl CCiI;;U()!"ICT)( :;I-],"jil iJe no ~-JI t\ :lei UT:r1 l'NKC Its deplJl
[This criterion is met ill the COllccptllall\1astcr Plan.]
J. II'le cornlllt'rCicll COfr:ponent sl iidllJE' riD 1,]1 C]er t!l,Yi 5 ,JC res In lize clrJd Sll:ill not exceed 45.000 square feet
of ~lr-oss le~lsable floor ~)ll\J
[This criterion is mel ill COllccptua!.i\!as!cr Plan, Exhihit A, SeCllOIl B.I.l alld Exhibit B, Table I1.J
4 f\Jo s'inQle c(Jll:rrlel(j~I,1 use III II-"t' currllnelClcil (UlnpOi"iE'TII \,I'~'~)II cxceecj 1 SJJOO squ,Jre feet of gross leasdble
flool ,~II't'<l except ~h~~r ,J (j'l{)(cry ~;tore or \( ipU n i,::1I ke1'liTill ) jot exceed ,)O.OUU square feet of gross leasclble
rinor ,'Ie\J
IThis criterioll is Illct 111 Exhibit B, l)n'c!opmcllt Standards, 'lahlc IJ.1
~) /\IIc)\N,'lllif:' COllI1I1CIC,i;,1/ rj.\e\ In U:c (CJITi.l'l;'err,I(i,! ceil I \)",11'1 I)c ill'nlled to ti'lose uses pennltted In the e-
), c -). (,lr:<J Co) zexlir'lq cil"l!iU'; ;i'; eCHil,-:11 iCel III 1[i(' (n<;),II'IC'1 (Yi' 1,:,t;cJ! Jc'vcluprneni (cxle, ()rcJln,]nce 04-4),
c:.:1S dliiencjecj, in efiec1 dS oj 11;'e n;:jte oj le))1 ur 1,111':" SUI)(}I)[IKI (Urejln:mce No 2005-2S lldopteel on June
"I. ~OOC,)
IThis criterJoll IS met 1I1 Exhibit A, LIst or ,\l1o\V:lbk l - ses, SectIoll B.1.:::,,\,2,1
() j'l.., (())In (;U.I', ,~I ( i -,i1l"( II }I,_'q' LI,C,lr;,c \1 ,C 1/1 be !.JSf'cJ :u: ,i.!i (Of; it II'! C;dl iJullcJinqs
IThis criterioJl for r"IIlI/1Jl(')",'/rd hlliJdil1g~ i~ not 1l1l't ill Exhibit B, DCTc]opmcllt Stancbrds. .-\lthough Exhibit B,
Rl'sidcmial Deve]opIllcnt Slandards. (,i'I/('lii/ ] tl'lll '"1)" ;ltlempt:-' compliance with a n:yidell/LJI provision, compliance
\\'ill1 thi5 1"f!Jl/l!ltnf~{/' pnl\'l~i()11 is 1l()1 attaillnl. (,>!iO;/i.' ]tl'111 "I)" (";In he rl'pliclt('d at, ()r relocated to, Commercial
i\liXl'd-t \l' 1)(>\"(']( lpmcnt ':-;tatJdard:-:. :1:-' :\ (H'!i('J;ti'] It'111.
Staff pre\"lOlls]y ITCOllllllt'llllccllh:lt deSIgn clt'llll'llt" !ll the COlllll1on :lrchi1l'ctural theIlle bc extended 10 reSIdential
P()r11()11:-; 1'( llll'\t'll-lhl' CO!lllllCl"na] l)1lildill~',s, and \() rl':-,icll'tlll;d hui]ding:.;. Thi~ stalH_brd \\'a." pr('yi()ll~ly stipulated to
ill I\cyit'\\, \.j(). 2. lbtlllg {o\pril .=:~, ':':(Jll(l, hIli is !l()t carned lhrough to the prl'scnt iteration. In order 10 do so,
(,(,lm;I,' ltem "1)" "holl].! Lw replicated :It !.Jlo\ rl'locatl'd toj C()11lmcrclal i\lix('d-l'se Development Standards, as a
(,(1/1'11.1/ I {l'1ll.1
Agent Response to Review 11 Remarks: This l1t'VCloplllt'nt Standard will be repeated as Item
"C" ('lll page ~) of loS,
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14,2010: Ackllowled3ed, l;eneral
I1cvCIOPlllcll! S!~ltllbl"d Helll "t:" 011 P~\,':l,C~) of IS provides this l:lll:z,ll~l~C.
II \_'()",il,::.!,
1,',' ,litH ',I Ie ill 11(' II! (
1"(I;'(';'('!i,iill'\;ilrl.,1 I"~
ITl1i" criterion h IlWI III Exhihil E, ])c\'(_']()Plllcllt (~, l!lllllitlllcllb, Sceti()1l .1.C NOll.': Drawing from both items Cl &
"7 ah()\t' - :-:1:lIl P1Tyiou:,;]:' rCC011111H'lHkd lhat ]1cdt':,lrian-C'-ctll' ..;trcl'1 ]igh1'lllg be utilizcd, '\vith a unificd style and
lhelllc lhro\lghout. (:olllpliancc tll ]w \Tnllnlllllring the dl'';l,~',ll :llld Site !)lTc!opmclll Plan (SI)P) stage of lhe
pnljnJ.1
~3 ,~-(e::,i(iell~i II ;J'I _'I f' rile .'\/\/( O{'j , II ii.] iii, :'y' I J( I(j( If C ,1I,!I.)\lC ( ()/Ii('(I('1 ': ;(_Ii ;.i',Cj !! i II'if' '),lll'lt' rJulicjjn~] or wltl-lln c]rl
:[l,:C ,I i('u' II iiLill' ,el' I\\",I'.!C! II i,11 '.U-',' "\il',/ \/v'11I,lj : I J,II ill iC'1 ( !' ii <; '- 'i I ;'[)U!IC-'(II 1\ ())i()\A)C'(J ;'011 ,1 civvellw;q un!!s per
,_ie! E' ,':'IC! ';1 ;,i1! iv' ( , lit.: I,'" :il~( i il' /'c1 i,I)(}' (lie' CI,I !"" ,," I' :: it,' il li;(' \' II Fj,l\i! ,Ie t
IThis st:1lldard llla\'lw lllet. ~tal't" pro\'ldc,; 111(' (OllI1\\'!llg ahbre\'l<ltnl :\Jlaly:>i:-::
4 I )L. /.\ :'. !\li:\.t'll-llse COlllP()1ll'llt .\1I! l\\';\11C(, IUSilli' ""':':.~'n I'ms" acrl'~) :~~ () J,Y' units
Pi rnZ-:!tI04-AR-G829
f):/\!is Rescl'\'e AJPl ,In - Review J (b
.,
- ,)-
Commercial Component residential unit calculation = 91.32 (rounded do\vn) = 91 units
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 200 of 407
This standard t.ll1011JJ, but does not specifically require, that a portion of the density generated from the commercial
tract be developed on the commercial tract; however, staff believes slIch a requirement is impliLd, as this density
allowance is specific to the "Commercial Component" of the Subdistrict. The petitioner has no firm proposal to
huild residential units on the Commercial I\.1ixed-l:se Tract.
Exhibit A, List of i\llo\vable eses, Section 13.1.2./\ lists "multi-family dwelling units above commercial units, or in
attached buildings" as a Principal Permitted Use in the Commercial I\lixed-Use Component.
Exhibit B, Development Standards, Table II provides the footnote, "If a commercial only building is developed
within the "[vlL:" Tract, this ...i,ft'PtlJil!e.rel ~/ J!I.IJlc!ard,,." applies".
In this Subdistrict, density is (\\varded for providing mixed uses in the Commercial Component. Staff recommends
that a provision be written into PUD documents requiring a specified portion of residential density awarded for
providing mixed-use development to he located 011 the Commercial i\1ixed-Use Tract. Using the minimum required
number of 91 residentialul1its that must be developed in this Subdistrict as a basis, 20 residential units would be
necessary to satisfy the mixed-use aspect of the Commercial Component -. approximaldy 220~) of the total ~ and 71
residential units could to go to the Residential Component. The comparable proportion applied 10 the presently
proposed 214 total residential units results \vith )1 residt'llual units bClllg necessary to satisfy th~'_mixed:":use aspect
of the Comml'rcial COlnpolll'ntl
9, Hie rl12xwnurn floor In::\:J rdtio fur corTIUlCIClC:.l1 uses IS 0_25
IThis standard IS met in Exhibit B, Devdopl11el1t Stanuards, Tab]e 11.1 However, approximately one acre of
commerci:11 floor area 111:1Y st:1lld behind four acres of parking lot. Sen:nty--hve percent of the commercial
component may appear to (_~ounty Barn and Davis Road travclers as a sea of blacktop edged with minimal perimeter
landscaping. This chanlcteristic of suburhan sprawl \vas all10ng the lo\vest-rated images in the Community Image
Survey ((:1P) oll1ducted \vhi](' preparing lilt' C()1l11l11wity (:!Iaracter j)lan (CCP). ']'raoitional neighborhood dcsign
and the cell offer ideas that help avoid dw problems :lssocialed wilh sprawl. Commercia] buildings can be situated
\\"ith shallo\v (rOll! setbacks ;l1ld minimal pm'king 111 front of the Lmilding. Pedestrian walk\\.,'ays surrounding the
cOI1l111lTcial imiiding{,s), \'viLh pedestrian scale iighting and landscape pbntings Gill increase safety by effectively
separating people fro!ll Iranll'. In addition. staff recommends thM 110 more thall two-thirds of parking spaces
pro\'ided can he adjacent to fronting rO;Hhvays. \,\'itlt these design ;dternalives, this modest commercial building
footprint -will a\'old suburb:ltl charaClenstics.J
phiS standard \\':lS prc\'io\lsl~' stipulated to ill Review No. --I. dating to Septnnbcr IB, 2(1()(). Rl'fer to the General
Crilcri:l no. :2 discussio1J below. Compliance to he \"('rif-led during the design and Sitt: Development Plan (SDP) stage
of the projed.]
J_J r;C')lcJcr~l:kIJ ( (),I1lflUI )('1)(
1 AC(,<_-I({e 10 he '!',(-'c:) j(JI ,i!cUI,-li1llrlICSlcjPI:,lul C-Jc'1
cx:cIUj!VC or 1IK' (OJ(,I)III,~)ICi{il C')I~irJCI,',\:T!! ,.II lei u! ill'/dCIC,
,_ill /\JJ,"\c!L.Jlt I..IVilli.~i [,Ole r-"I-kill tlC cJ',
~:'_ySlel ~:
jThls criterion is met. Starf proVIdes l"lll' following abbrevLlted alla]~sis:
ir; tile ,I('jlcJCI'~klJ CCJPXJCJritTl( el[ the SU)Jc1!StriCt I~,
i~W fUI ,i j\C 'With ;-! I p\IClenlkil equlvdlcncy such c.IS
ClctClllliI :1(yJ (~T)pllc_iilor I uf UK' Dcn')!ty 1\C:ltln~l
l'nder the I,'IJIF DCllsily\{atl11g S~'Sletll, the subject property '-lu(\lifies for a maximum of 2?,4 dwelling units (10.25
Dt~ / A). The llellsity Rating Sy;.;tel1l analysis Eor the proposed Davis ResenT project is as follows:
4 DU/.\ = Basc Dcnsity (using 17.1-L) residcntial acres) = /1.32 units
:1 Dt~/,\ = Proxt1l1ity to !\1ixl'd l:se ;\clivily (~l'lltcr (using 17.8_) rcsidcnti;lJ acres):::: 51.49 units
1 Dt' /,\ :::= ,\ccess to 2 or more Co]lector Roads (using 17.83 residential acres) = 17.H3 unit;.;
punZ-200./-AR-G829
navis Reserve MPU[) - Review] ] /J
-./ -
~ DU/:.\ = I\lixcd-usc Componcnt BOllus rusini' 22,8.1 aCfes VfOSS) = 91
Total residential units allmved = 2.1.1.96 (rounded uP) = 2.1~ uni!:;
'0 .
,.LUlllts
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14,2010
Page 201 of 407
~7 = ,\tfordahk :tnd \\-orkt"orce 1 lousing llnits Required (20" (0 of total)j
;: SCTV!Ce rCJ(~i(js cH"l(j Si-i,.:11 tJC Intcqr ~l(e(j !llleJ ~I-;e resldcntul component. of tile Subd!strlct
!This ,~IPL'D combines a number of multi-family reside!]!.!al blllldings and commercial structures '\\lith residential
units on upper floors. The D,t\.is Reserve I\IPUD document addresses, and its Conceptual Ivlaster Plan illustrates,
areas accessible to \Tehicles in two manner:,;. ,\s local streets, presumably to he platted as public rights-of-way, and as
traHic circulation dri\'es. No "selTice rO;lds" or "alleys" arc specifically ;lddressed O[ ilh.lstrated, The arrangement
of these arcas accc'''sihle 10 \Thiclcs ho\VcHT, l(l a limiled degree, function as service roads and alleys,
,\ traffic circulation driye shows Illgn'ss/cgn.'''s from COllnty Barn Road onto the subject property at its
sOlltll',vestern-mnst point; This dnn: proyides for traffic cI1TLdalioll and access to parking areas around the
commercial l)Uildin,l.~;(s). for sCI\-ice access hy tenants and residents al lhe rear of these commercial/mixed~llsc
huiJding(s), and for direct acn.'ss to p;uLing seryillf. upper [1oor residellts. This driyc also provides access into the
residential ncighburll()( ld.
The proposed design ;lppems 10 llwet the functional 1l1tent of this s[wcillc C;i\IP requirement. In any case, the fmal
arrangement or public slreets :lnd pny,ltc ;ICCt'SS dnH.'s must pro\'li..le Illore than one route choice to vehicle traffic
111/into each lTsldenti:ll cJu;lllranl, and ,1Y()ld backmg lll;J.IWll\'CrS by Sl'lT1Ce yellldes in all areas, This criterion was
prcyiously slipulated 10 in Rn'lew 1\0.5. datlllg to l)ccctll!Jcr 15. 2()()(l, Compliance to be \'erified during the design
and Site Di..'H'lopment Plan (SUp) stage ()f lhe project. I
C (-JPI it:\lc_i! (I ilell:!
I' C!ICCllj,',_ili'_"c1 I( j I )1' Hi 11 il':( i!lii )1,1 I'
ISo proposnLI
",ill:I,'!(,1 Ilf 1 ')'i,lj',iil II i'II',('1 (1,,'1(",;1('
': Ii)' , '.,{ II, ,{ 'IIi. 'e,1 i I ('I!, r : i n'~/ I:;,: if I, i, cue! clllc! LJ,-iVI\ i3UI.1icVdrcj
I'lhese criteria \\ere prcY!ous]r stipubtcd I(l ill I~e\-H'\\- No.~, dall1lg 10 ~qHc11lher 1:-\. 2()()(l, hut do nol appcar ill the
presenl lter:ll!/l!l. I'ark\ng arc;1 arr:ll1gcllll'11l b lull Ilrll'l1lnllllll'rtl(lll~. to the sitl' ~ particularly in the commercial
Cl1111P()11cllt, \ddlllfJl1a1 H"crccl1111,P, IS IHd "pccltlcdh ;lddressnl ()!IH'r t1];111 "landaI'd J.1)(: landscaping 10 meet this
pcr((Jr]ll:l1HT sl;lndard,
StaC!' !HTyjow-,]r lTC()lllI1H'lHled, ((lr IOC1Il<l1l" \dll'rc lJll SllTet p:lrkll1g i" round Oil local slreets IlO off-street parking
Iw allnwcd 111 f[ill]1 \;nds, .\IIIT"ldcTlli;d parkltlV,:m :IS \\T1T to he 11l1lTIl;di/'cd 111 somc 1]1;\llI1Cr, Rcs](lcl1tial buildings
;lre tll (;lee puhlic "InTis, \\'ilh (;lC;ldl' onCTltati(lll lrl\\,;tn1 lhe lra(llc urclc \d1l're adjaccnt. Compliance ma) hc
:ltlained and uti lw \'tTlllnl dllril1~: illl' dt'Sl~(ll ;lTld Sill' I k\'t'loplllelll Pbll '~I)P) sLlgc of the projecL!
),',':I"',i,', ')[,i" i)i
";I'i' i,ill;
"~I! 1"( L\/io: J; i :i I jili!r Ii,! < i',
!SuJf t'11Ctlllr:l.l!CS
huildl11? :1l:Ccs,;,
(:olllplullCC to he
1111;11 Illllltl111f designl III C()1lll1H'rcial C()ll1p(J1]Cnt 10 tllc111dc sccolld-tloor walk-ups '\\lith frotlt-of-
'].hb c;l;ltl(hnl \\';lS prC\'llluc;h c;llpli!:l!ed \(, III ]ZlT1C\\' '\,J(l. ~, (bung to September I~. 200(l.
\Trllinl dUrlllg I he lk~I~'ll awl ~il(' I kn'lopllll'llt I'Lln ~SI )Pl qage of the project.!
! i,II!') ,,:! ,e! Ix), II C 111/, ili I: i,-i_i I)' [)'; iv'lej('(J:'.! pi (",C'I V, II!(}I, ; J,I (\_1\ IU,' ! Ilk!! I(~ (lllcJ ecJU(,l1l011<:JI PUIPU:,('S. If
( '11'\:' )1(' ,1,,1 '/VII!--, ,ilJiE' ICY ,ii', SI, i'l (il ill :CrJei, Ii ('1I'Vi,' r Jt I!i ;el!:,:i plu(ry II'()! 1 rcqcA-:lI0n<;
fTllis s1;11Hbrd \\';IS pn'\'I()ll~I~' met ill I~e\'l(,\\- '\0. -t, daling t(l Sl'P1l'mlwr lK. ::::1 Hl(l. Suff lTcolHtlll'ndcd that these
trails or hoanJ\y;dks 1)(' COll11ected Itl (O[ll1;t! pedestriall \\';lll~\\';\:-s. Petitioner agreed to comply further with staff
rccol1l111l'lllblilln:'- dllrlllg lhe design ;llld Sill' Ikn'loplllC1l1 Plan (SJ)P'~ stage or the projcct.]
l'[J[)Z-2Ll[14 -AR -6829
navis /{eserve lvlPl ,In - Review lIb
:; ~
5 The Subdistrict Sllerlllnclude cl pel! k. sm.JII pldzds dnd otller types of open spclce
[This criterion may be met in Conceptual f\.1astcr Plan, but no language addresses preserve area, lake, or plazas
located inside traffic circles. This standard '\vas previously stipulated 10 in Review No.4, dating to September 18,
2006. Compliance to be verified during the ucsign and Site Development Plan (SDP) stage of the projecLJ
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 202 of 407
6. The number and type of ,Kcess pOints Shelll IJe limited, as deemed appropriate dUring review of
subsequent development orders, so ,JS to minimize dlSITlptlon 01 traffic flow on OeMS Boulevard and County
Barn Road
[This criterion '.vas pre"viously met in Review No.4, dating to September 18, 2006.J
7 Development within the Subdistrict SITIII be encour21ged to use d gild street system, or portion thereof. so
elS to proVide multiple route ellternatlves
lThis standard is not met in COl1ccptuall\laster Plan. Standard was previously stipulated to in Review No.4, dating
to Sc:ptcmbcr '1 H, 2()()6 but the prl'sent iteration has eliminated the second ingress-egress point previously located at
the south end of the commercial parking area. This second connection is essential to maintaining an acceptable
portion of a grid street system that provides alternative route choices.
i\ Jesign that provides "multiple route alternalives" as previously proposed must hl' presentc:d and verified during
the design and Site Den'lopmellt Plan (SDP) stage of lhl' projecL]
8. Veri!cular, pl'clesn !,WI all(J rJlc(cle ,Iccess to tl ie 51 lbdl\1r ICI Sllerl! Ill' pi oVlclecl
[These criteria are met in Exhibit E, Development Commitments, Sectiolls 3.1\ and 3.1ll
9_ A V('ll!CuldI il-lterCur1llccllUn ~!!~)il jx' prov!cJeej rJetvveeri the r-esldenl!(]) ~ln(l (OmmerCidl components of the
SUb'lIStnCl
IThis criterion is Illet in Conceptual 0.1astcr Plan.]
to. BOtll pedl'stmn :1I1d 1)lcyclc II itl'lCOIlrtl'c!lOIlSlii,IIlIJe proVided 1JE'lweerl tile reSldenticll ~ncj commercial
CCH"npOllents or t_he S'--JhclISI,',I(1
IThis criterioll may he Illet. Sl:dl c~lrlilT reC(Hllllle1H.kd that the COllceptual l\.laslyr Plan he amended to add
pedestrian/bicycle access indicat{)ts. cr()ssillg the Cf)l11lllcrcial/residcntial component boundary. These
intercotltlectioll~ were illustrated Oil the COllceplual !\hster Plan and explained by Petitioner regarding compliance in
Review No.4, dating to September IH. 2(J()6, but do not appear in the present iteration. Compliance to be verified
during the design and Site lkyclopmelll Plall (SUP) stage of lill' project.1
Agent Respanse to. Review 11 Remarks: These linterconneetionsl are still illnstrated an the
current conceptual plan.
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14, 2010: Ackllowledged, These
interconnections appear on Exhibit "C", the Conceptual Maslcr ['Ian dated June 2010 and are
labeled as PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ACCESS in its Legend, ['Janning [Jevetopmcnt Commitment
Item ":-;.L )" 011 pa~~c ] 4 of ] 0 provides the bll:;ua~c to venfy thIS aspect during the SDf' stage of
the proiect.
II /\ p,'Wll.inUrTi of (,) I le\jder;!i(i! IHill'; )IL:~II :J(' devC'luped In H'c ('~ut)(ll~trICt W11.s r-eflects the Oensl1y r\atlng
:;ysrern's tx:'P clE"rlslty (If :Clur cJvve!linq unllS pe,r- ,JerE:', :lppllec! tu !hc lotdl ')!te ;luedqe) For U-Je project's
totJI - W!'iCU1CI It is tile' 1{llnl! nUl n of 91 c1welllnq unit\. eJl' (J ~jre{]ter cHTJOunt DS ,]lIowcd by the
[)er .R~): (jell IJUIIU\ pi C JV!SI(Jr 1\ cH-iel ,:lpprovecJ \/Ie--I relorllnq - ,1 1f1lr1lrnUlfl of ten percent
(I InU~,1 IJt' '::lrfUICL1Il!C Vv'()rk:'o,rcc ulllt'; prov!cjecJ for l!n)se ecHl1l1Hj less tI-ldrl or cqudl to 80%
of tI-;e ITipcll,Yi liouse!lokJ ,TlCCl.Ir;elol COi'lier Cc)unt'~/ c:ncJ ,::motl-lcl rnlnWTllJITI of ten pelTenr (10%) must lJe
,:::fforcJ'::lIJle 'Norkforce ,llC)usirl~~j units PI-ovlclC'c] for t!x)sc' ednl11 lCJ gre~!ter- lrkfl1 80%. but no grcJtcr the1rl
i OO~!<]. of Un:' r{redidr) IHJiJSel-lokJ Income Fex Collier County
PLTDZ-2004-AR-6829
Davis Reserve MPI1[) - Review lib
- ()-
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 203 of 407
IThe affurdable housing pro\'ision for this Suhdist-rict 1s a requirement - that 2()O'() of the lotal residential unit count
be composnl of 1 (II! (I affordable and 111'10 workf{)fCC !Jflllsing units.
Commercial C0ll1pOIH..'1l1 rcsidcllli;d unit calculalH)ll = 91.,)2 (rounded c!()wn)
Residential (~()\np()1lenl rcsirlcntial U1Il1 cakulati{)11 1..J.2.CJ.~
= 91 units
(rounded
up)
143
units
\hximulll number of fcsidclllialullits ,lll()\vcd ~~ 2,)4
This density calculatioll limils dC\TI()j11lll'1l1 to 10.25 dwelling units per acre.
= i\rrordaLIe and \Vorld~l1'cc I lousing t'11its ]{cqlllrcd (201l Il of total). IThls criterion "vas previowdy stipulated to in
Renew No. 2, dating to .\pril lX, 2(H)() ami currclltly met in Exhihit E, Development Commitments, Section 4_A_.1
r!le' r CbJriE-_' UICJI{,,:n1( C II r ip!er) ,enl!II~~1 i !-w; (,!,1i h:il\[r 10 \h, ill 'J_'t ;urti-;' ~J prOV!Slon to WI')! ,lre construction of thiS
n;'llill,IUln ;'-iu,'r;lli':'1 ;)1 'jlllt\ ,tllll (If "II!I!'), "'_iCh ,jj ~1 C.JD on the cornrnerCli.-ll floor area filar- nlclY
!JCI\\iJh) (I C ('1 ti:!c' itC' (,I O( c iii\ll j' i )I,(),' ") ( ;',:1 J( lie),I, or 11,(' I) ;'i,-)IITiUlll nLJIT:her, ,_1(1(1 type. of residential
urllLS
IExhibit E, CCl1eral DC\'l']OplllC1l1 C011l11litllll'l1b, ~lIbSl'CllOl1 7:
.\. Building permits for COllllllcfcla] dCH.lop1llcllt shall not be issued for greatcr than 20,OOU Sl]Uare feet of floor area
prior to issuallcc o( building permits ror ;1 minimulll of lJl {hvelling units, inclusive of the required
propflrtionalc lltllnlH'r of affordahle-workforce housing 1.lllib.
B. Ccrl1Jlca!cs o!" (kcupancy for commercial de\TlopmCll1 shall nrl! he bSUl'd for greater than 2I1J)()() S{jUalT feet of
tl(lOr area prtl)r Ii) issuance ilC (:CrldICltc<.; 1)( l )cCup;lllcr fur;l minilllulll of ()i dwelling units, inclusive or the
relJlllred pn)p()rlio!l;l!(' l1lIlllbcr or ;il"(iJl"lbhk-\\()rkforce l]()lIsin.L', UllUS.
C hlr ;111 residential dwelling unih exceeding the minimum or ()i units, till' rl'l}Ll1red proponionaie number of
a(ford;lh1c\\-ork(il1"CC housing ullHs slull he C()n<.;lnlClcd C()llCllrlTlll ".ith market rate dwelling units.
This critLTllJll wdl he l11el h\ ;Idding Ihe abo\'c lhnT f_),i C()11l111111l1('llh to the Da\"1s Reserve PLID rczone ()rdinance.
.\ fourth elllry was pnTloll:,h' lTCOllllll{'IHkd h\ staff 1() the pctitlo11n. but it docs not appear in Exhibit E,
\fforlbb1c I ]OUSII1V l)cyc!opmenl (:()Illllutllletll~, ~llh~t'Ctioll 'l.B, 111 the current i1eration of l\lPl~D documents as
1TCOllllllClldl'll.j
Agent Response to Review 1 I Remarks: All Ihrcc llf the above commitments appear in the
ell/Tent i\-ll'(1[l dClCl1l11cnl, LxllibiJ L l~t'llt'r:tl ()CVclOPlIll'll! Stallcbrds.
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14, 2010: Acknowledged, l;eneral
Development COlllmitll1cnts IklllS "i.A", "i.n" and "7.(''' 011 pa2?,c 15 of 18 provide this
L:lll,SIW,'l,C, and ~ll'e 10 bc ~lIt;ldtcd tl) tIll' lln1illallL"l'_
Thl' RC:,ldcllll;d (:()lllj1ilIlClll prm-blOll<.; 1'1)1' 1I1IS \LdltlL-:'lrtCl sl;llL'_ "\nC:lge 10 he used for calculaung residcntial
dUlslir 111 the lTSl<kllti;d Cl)ll1pOlll'1l1 (>t" the \UlxlJsll'\Cl lS exclusin' ()( tl1(' COlJ1mL'lTial componcnt and of any
:lCrc;lgc (()r :1 t1:,c \\ith :1 1"l'Sldt'111i;d CYlll\-;llel1C\. such :1" :ill \1.1 - \dllll l.l\-illg hlCility. j'Jigible density shall be as
determined hy appltC111011 ()j" thc I kllsil\' I\;tlil\l', :;:"1('111,"
Densily IS awarded ill thi:-; SlIhdistncl (or pro\"ldillg mixl.d lI~CS 111 111(' {"Oll1IllLTC1:tl componellt. ,\s a cotlcii(jon of
;l\v;uding tillS density, :t 1l1l11inllIll1 ;l1l1ount ()f :rJf()nlahk-\\-orkfol'ce ]l(lUSlllg is rcqUlred. \\\-arding this density tor
dc\'{'loping :\ mixnJ-u:,e projt'ct prm.Hk~ IT:l~i)n;lhlc C()lllj)('l1:",lliOIl for rel]llinng affordable. workforce housing. It
(ol1()\\-s 111:\1 dt'll:,it\ hlllll1St'S (or pro\"lding tht' llllllimu1l1 a1l10UTH oj af(ordabk-\vorkforce housing arc not
addili(lna]h- a\\-ardcd. I'hi<.; ]'etitHlll di>(':-; Ill)! pnlp')Sl' ajfill"tbhkwilrkttJtTc housing abo\"(' the 2() percent minimum
lTtjlllrcd
F[TDZ-2[J04-AR-r,82,'l
nUFis l\eserllc A1Fl Tn - Rede~v J J b
- f-
Review of PUD Document and Master Plan:
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 204 of 407
EXIIIBIT A
Exhibit A, List of l\llo\vable Uses, Sections 1\.1.2.B.l and 13.1.2.13.6 list "gatchouses, guardhouses, and/or access
control structures" as i\cccssory lYses. Gates and similar structures are not allowed however, bet\Vccn the
Residential and Commercial I\fixcd-Use components by Exhibit B, Residential Development Standards, General
Item "C", Revise Exhibit A sections to read, "gatchouscs. guardhouses, and/ or access control stnlctures, except to
gate, guard or control access between lh<.' RL'sidcntial and Commercial :i\.fixeu-Use components"; or, remove the
"gatehouses. guardhouses, ;lnd/or access control structures" entries entirely; or, another modification that results
with a provision consistent \vith other commitments, standards and criteria.
Agent Response to Review 11 Remarks: The language on Exhibit B, uuder GENERAL, Item "c" in
both Residential and Commercial Mixed-Use components ensures that "vehicular and pedestrian
traffic remains unobstructed" to provide the desircd results,
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14, 2010: Acknowledged, General
Devclopmcnt Standard Item "C" on pagcs 7 of 18 and 9 of 18 provides this language,
EXl11BlT B
Exhibit B, Developmcnt Standards, Table II, Footnote 1: ShaUo\v setbacks follow Community Character Plan
(CeP)-derivcrl FLUE ()bjccLive 7 and its applicahle Policies. Some method for measuring these from back-of-curb
is encouraged, as allowed hy the I,DC, or within confines uf Pl:J) [J\Iclhod is IIl"()\'idcd by footnote to Lable in
Devcl()pmcnt Standards. I
Exhibit B, Residelltial DC\Tlopmellt Standards, C'mend hems "1)" & "F:": ..\ unified architectural theme anu
parking characleristics fo11o\\/ Community Character Plan (CCP)-derived l'l,UE Objective 7 and its applicable
Policies. Ref!..'1" to the COlllHlcrci,,1 CompOllent criteria no. () discussion above. IThis standard was prcviously
slipulalcd Io in Rc'vicw No..1. dating to December 15. 2()U(). but absent from current itnation.!
Agent Response to Review 11 Remarks: Refer to answer 10 Commercial Component criteria No.
G discussion above.
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14,2010: Acknowledged, General
Dcvelopment Standard tlem "[" on p"ge ~) of 18 provides this Jan,';;llage,
Exhibit B, Development Standards. TaGle 1l: Farlier starr Consistency RC\'lew comments iwlicIlt'J this PUD is
expcc1cd to incorporatc both minimum !!..lli.i maxilnum sl'1hacks Ifrolll in1crn;t] ro;tchvaysl. For examplc, \vhere a
111l11llJll1m Crolll setback di;-;tancc of fIve feet (S ft.) is proposed for residclltial buildings, there \vill be maximum
sl't!J:lCk distance - the "build-to Iinc" - of tell feci: dO ft.). [This standard was previously stipulatcd to in RcyiC\v ::-.Jo.
5. ~btillg Lo Dece111l)('r IS. 20(1() but docs nill appcar ill the ClllTl'llt iler;l1iol1.
j':nSUfl.' Illl' use of "Illi!llllltllll" or "maXltllUm" cOlllcides with J:LUI': and LDC provisiolls. Note. both a minimum
and maximulll setb,lCk 10 Internal 1"o;ldw:1YS should also appear iu .Ethlc I - \vilh the tlltl.\:i!Jl1f1ll residential setback
s~Tying to substitutc for a "build-to linc.' -- a tLTm lhaL has tJol been lntroduced into the LDC. Provisions specific to
this I'll}) may nced to be prcpared by the Zoning Services staff as parI of the Davis Rcserve-apprm'ing PUD
rezone ()rdinance.
Agent Response to Review 11 Remarks: This issue was addressed in an earlier review and has
appeared as "tvlinilllul1I" only in the tables since .2008. The use of a minimum and maximum
has not appeared in allY I'UD ()rdinunce approved in Collier County. Using a "maxinlulll" or
"build to line" would 0111y serve to further complicate the issues as it did in the past.
FUDZ-2004-AR-6829
DaFis RCSC1'FC MFUD - RCFicw ] I b
- 8-
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14, 2010:
current standard in Table II is accepted.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 205 of 407
Acknowledged, The
Exhihit B,Residl'lltial l)cn:!opmcnt Standards, (;(lIen'; ltem "C": ,\ 11l1itlcd development design and cominuity
between Components follow Community Character Plan (CCP)-dLTivcd l-;'LUE Objective 7 and its applicable
Policies. This was rctlectcd in CCf1craJ Item "C" disallo\'ving gates Of similar structures. IThis standard \Vas
previously stipulated to in RlTiew No.5. dating to December 15, 20{)(J. Compliance rq be verified during the design
anu Site Development Plan (SUP) stage of 1 he project.)
EXI 11 BIT E
Exhihit E, DCyelopnH,:'nt Commitments Specific to lilt' Project, Subsectioll ..l...\, ,\ffordable I Iousinp- in the project,
specifically commits, '~l minimum oj' IOOI! ?/ iI!e 01'('1iu'/ I'I:JidCJ!/t~'/ dll)eil'i/~~ Imil elfIUt!} J/Jall be ifflordab/e-workjon-e hOHJi/~g NHi/J
/JIY}1'idcdjhr (IHJJt e(/l7li/~~ II'J'J (hall or equal (0 8()Oo 0/ (/it mer/iil/! IJOUJc!wld ilh'OlllCfor Collier C01ll1!J' and another minimum?f 100,'0
(l IIi!' Ol'l'nd/ detl.Ii!l' .rha// he tI!I;)/{/dl)/f-!p()l~~~;(m'(' /io/{.1'!1I!!, uflilJ ../1IYJl'ldi'd lor !/!O.I'i' (,ilmiJ~~,~IT'(ller IIJaJ} 8()~'n. Iml nO.,~realer than !()()~/o
r:/ 1/)(' l1J('(11~1I! hlJ/udJo/d ill1'()//HjO,. (JJi/ltl" (JI!fII!]' ':
Thi~ commitmcllt I~ consistcllt \yith S\lhdi~lrict pnl\'lslon~. Staff docs not l)('lieve hO\\-'l'\-'l'r, that the Board of
County (:(lITlnlisSl0!1(TS purpose \\';lS to rl'l]lJjIT lk1'J"ihc project ()jf<:r ;\ff()rdablc.\\'orkforce housing in perpetuity-
but for a lcn,gth of lime c(Jmpa!";\hle\\'ltl1 (lthel" ;dfonbhlc ]lOllSlllg appnnTd ill the Cuunty. cl~'pical affordable-
workforce housIllg commitme!1ts rem;\ll1 in c(fect (or len (Ill,: to fifteen (lS) years, after wluch the units may be
offered at markct rates. Such cOlllmil1ncnts 111;1\' 1)(' made ollrsidc PLIJ documents \\-'ith a separate affordable
llflllstng ;lglTCllle1H wrincll to pnlyidl' certain!:' 1'1)1' rhese aspecls or llw ProlCct:
.
a specific j1er!(Jd fir time the d\\Tlling ullits tllllSl l1lal11I:1111 af(r1nbblc~workf()rce status;
IT\'inv aud appl"o\';d through dll' Dqurt1lll'ut of I [o\lsing and Ihunan Services prior to obtaining
constructio!l permits Ickyclop11lctlt orders) ror cunstruclloll of said hOllsing llnits, and
approprialc reporlillg, lllo11il'oring and other ;lSPCcts tYpICal or othel" affordablc-\\'orJ,;Jorcc housing projects.
.
.
Rcfrrcncc;":~,i ;(; ;iij:\' :~cp:\r;llc ;lgnl'ilKl1t \\11l1!l il1:i,k p,ji~i lit' illL III '1) rl'/~\!iH,' ChdiiUiiLl'.
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14,2010: i\cknowledscd. Affordable
J Jousillf2; Developmellt COllllllitlllcnt Itelll '"'4.1f' l111 p~l,'-Z,CS J 4- ~tlld I ~ of 18 provides this
LlIlsua;.:.e.
Such COlll1111l111ellts 111;II\l' Ihe CLlITt'lll \'lTSlflll rd- Exhihit E, I)C\Thlpllle1l1 <:01ll1llitnH'lltS Specific to the Projec1,
Subsectio!l .-1-.13 OUI {)f SCqlll'llCl' ;\11l1 nol 111 COll1pl1:\11lT. \11 altern:l1in' C01l1mllmel1t IS recommended in concluding
sralelllC1llS helr)\\,
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14,2010: Acknowtcdsed, Atfol'dable
Ikl!ISil1.'~ DCVl']Opllll'llt CiJlll1l1itll11'llt ]It'lll '"'4.l~" ('Il p:I~~(,S 14 andJ ~ of IS provides this
I..,,,....,...,
fdl f,~"lld;,,\..
I\lisccllalleolls
1\.Jo business ~Igns \\'ill hl' jocall'd outside lhl' ('()11l1l1LTcial \Iixl'd l '~l' Ikn']()prncnt area. )\jo freestanding busincfls
signs will he permitted :dnog D;\\IS Bouk\'ard. IThis standard \\ :\S prc\'i()ush' stipulated to in Review No. 5, dating
tl) J'kcembcr 1:1, 2()()() This entr\" is ;1I1:'l'111 (rrllll tlll' curre11t iln:ltHJll hl)\\T\Tr. Standard may still be mc1 by
tT\'isillg Pl' 1) d( ~Cuml'nls ;IS (( dl( )\\'s:
Agent Response to Review 1 I Remarks: LanSlla:;e for this Standard will be added if LDC
l'e;l,lIbtiollS would L1t1lt"rwisc a]]o\\' sllch k1(f~sib::' COllllllel'cial] si.sna:.;e along residelJtial frontage.
Pl,T'Z-2004-AR-682,cJ
navis J\.CSt'lYC AIPun - Revic\v lIb
u -
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 206 of 407
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14, 2010: Acknowledged,
Residential Tract Development Standard Item "F" on page 7 of 18 provides this language,
a. Adding these statements to Exhibit B,Rcsidcntial Developmellt Standards and 1\lixcd-Use Development
Standards, as the next GCJltra/ Item entry in order under each; or,
b. Adding sunilar entries as "Prohibited Uses" to Exhibit A, List of Allowable Uscs, under each of the three (3)
land use tracts; or,
c. Including the statements in another manner satisfactorily providing the same results.]
Certain architectural features atc part of the Davis Reserve !\lPLJD, as follow:
. Entry-level front porches \verc to be rC'-luired where front setbacks arc at a minimum - or less than the
"build-to' distance - to softell the edge and create a transition. For example, 5-foot deep stoops and porches
\\'ould be required where actual building setbacb are 1 () 10 15 feet. [Petitioner previously stipulated to design
fa<;ade clements in Review No.5, dating to December 15, 20U6 that create this transition, but not necessarily
with porches or stoops or stairs.J
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14,2010: Acknowledged, Planning
Development Commitment Item "3D" on page 14 of 18 provides the lanzuage to verify this
aspect during the SJ)f' stage of tile project.
. Building facades will not be tlat. \':uia1ion, articulallon and other architectural design features ate required.
Similar variation \vill be applied to building heights and rooflines. [petitioner previously agreed to dcsibJ11 fas:ade
ekmcnls in R('\'ic\\' No.5, dating to [)ccelnbcr 15, 20()(l.j
. Ba1collH:'S, colo1lnades and arcades arc encouraged above the cntr) kvel. [petitioner previously stipulated to
include sirn.ibr elL'sign clements. in Rcvicv: No.5, (btlng to Dec(rnber 15, :?Jlrl(j but not l1:"cc' '~:lf1!) \,v1th b,tlcnl11('~'
or colonnades or arcades. I
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14,2010: Acknowledged, l'lanning
Development Commitment Itcm "3,D" on paze 14 ofl 8 provides the lallZllaze to verify this
aspect durillZ the SDl' stage of the project.
These stipulatiolls remain acceptable. I Jo\Ve\"Cf, IlO architectural plans were ~llbnlltted to illustrate these desih,'1l
clemellt~, but a "RepresentatIon o( 'J\pICa] Building Stylc~" was. These /{(prCJCJl!ulio!1 materials are absent from the
current iteration, but rCIll:1111 (lCccptahle for i]]u:-:tnltiH' purposes if they arc t''\Tntually included as references
accessory to the PllU reZ(lllt' ()rdinancc.
Agent Response to Review 11 Remarks: The photos were inclllded previously. Ilowever, it \vas
asked by COllllty staff in the June to, 2008 AR Letter thai Ihese [Rcpresentation of Typical
Buildil1$ Styles] be removed from the F'llD ordinance and offered only as support.
Staff Findings based 011 Resubmitted Materials dated June 14,2010: Ack1lowledzed, Inclusion
as a support (iocument is acceptable, but the <l'l:ent !!lust present these ReurescIltntioll1uaterials
a~aiJl ill $[)(' LJlwse. F'Janning Development COlllmitment Item "3.D" 011 page 14 of I 8 provides
the lall:.;uage to verify this aspect dnring the SUI' sln:,e of the project.
. Traffic Circle island will be designed and constructed with a greater diameter/inside pavement edge than its
approaching-street pa\'l'tnent '\vidtl1 (edge-to-edge). IThis st-andard was previously stipulated to in Review No.5,
dating to December 15, 2()(J(J, Compliallce to be verified Juring the design and Site Development Plan (SDP)
stage of the project.!
I'UnZ-2004-AR-6829
Davis Reserve MFUD - RtTiew lib
- 10-
Agenda Ilem No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 207 of 407
Ba~cd UpOll Pl.'I) document revic\\', st;dl has the following lTCOIYlt11C1H.latiol1s:
Statement of Compliance is llllsslng the fo1Jo'\\'ing references. which need to be included therein:
. ""['he Da"lS Rl'~er\'e PL~D is a m:l~ll'r pbnncd cmnmunity and is planncd to encourage ingenuity, innovation and
imaginati(lIl as set !()rth in the I,and l)c\'d()pmClll C()dc (1 JX:) }llanllcu l'nit Development District."
. '~\ll final local dC\Tlopmcnr orders for this project are subject to the Collier COUllty Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance, Section (J,()2.00 of the LUC."
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14, 2010: The County administers
f'UDs differently since the lime this recommendation was first offered, and no sLlch stateluents
are now necessary.
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff concludes the requested pun rezone may
be deemed consistent with the Futurc Land Usc Elemcnt with the revisions indicated above and the
following modifications:
. Include the statemcnt, "Compliancc to Ill' \Trilled during the d~:sjgll and Site Dc\'dopment Plan (SDP) stage of
the project" as part of the Pctitioll/iPl 'l) m:l!cnals ror any and ;11] or the standards and cr1fcria indicateu above that
lllay bc dcferrcd until that lime. Thco.;c include ]tems a.l.. ;\.'., a.9., h2" C)., c...t., c.S., c.!., C.!., c.10., Exhibit 13
(;'eI1Cm/llcm C., and other :-;!]pubtiollS so indicated ahO\T.
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14,2010: Acknowled:<,cd, f'lanllil~"
Development L'OllllllitlllCllt Hem "'~"Lf)" 011 pa,~e 14 of 18 provides this lansua,ge.
. '()P~' Lxhibit It Residentia] Dcvel()plllcllt Standards, (;l'llcral Item "1)" to Commercia] t\1ixed-Usc
Developml'llt Standards, as;l (;l'lH.'ralltl'm.
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14,2010: Ackllowled:,.ed, Gelleral
lkvelop1l1cnt Slandard Ilem "'C' 011 pa,'l,c~) of IS provides tllis lall~WI5?,C.
. RC\'lse l'~xhjbit B, lk\"clopmellt :;'tal1dards, 'lable II \() iIlC(ll'IH>nllC b(Jlh mmimum and maximum setbacks [from
111ten1;\1 roadwaysl.
Agent Response to Review 11 Remarks: This issLle disl'lIsscd above, with 110 resultillg chan,Ses to
rUD materials.
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14,2010; Acknowled:<,ed,
. f\lodi(r 1:,\.)uLJit (~, 11ll' (:()llCe]1111:d :\L1SILT 1)1:111 til include:l \"{.ll1Cltl;lr 11l,l'Yl'ss-q.!,rcss COlllll'cti()1l \\'uh the entrance
drJ\T ]()cltnl ;It the SOllth end (If tIll' C()lll1llLTC1;J! )l..lrkl11!-.J, ;lrC\.
Agent Response to Review II Remarks: r\,.:,I\..'cd to !1l'lWidc this additional Clllltledian.
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14, 2010: AclUlowledged,
COllccptllall\tlslcl' I'!all 011 p:l.'l,l' I ~ of l.s, alld l\)IIl'cpttwl Access Detail drawill~~s 011 pages I G
of 18 and 17 of IS pnwidl' this vcliicllbr ill,..:,n:sS-t'S,rcsSl'l11ItlCctioll.
. H.epLlCe the l'lltry III l'::\l1ihit I., Ik\clol)lllt'lll (:()IJll111lllH'lllS ~peCl!I( to lhe Pr()ject, Subsectioll 'f.B, \\,ith:
B. "the ()\V11lT \Vlll entLT iuto all ;If!rcCllll'llt \\'lth tIll' B()ard ()f (:(HUJry <:(ltl1IllISsi(JllCrS for implelnentatio!1 of the
\ffordabll-\\'orkCorcl' Ilollsing rl'ljuirelllcllt C01H:lillnJ 1n Ihl' ]);1\']S Bou!e\'ard/CoUIl1y Barn Road i\1ixed-Usc
Subdistrict ill the I'-\\!ure I.and lisl' l.Jl'1l1Cllt ()f lhc (;rrl\\,th i\lallagC]]]Cnt PlallllJ conjunction with review of, but
1'11[l;;;-20t14-AR-(;S2,')
navis R("'scrve ,\;fPU[7 - Review 11 b
- 11 -
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
. . Page 208 of 407
prior to or concurrent \vith approval of. the first submitted sHe development plan or subdivision plat and plans
within the Subdistrict. The agreement will reOcct the actual condilions relating to the then existing housing and
mortgage market as \vell as the fl'ljuirements <Lnd availability of the various government affordable and other
housing finance programs.
Agent Response to Review 11 Remarks: Some sort of subsidy program will be needed by the
developer to build the affordable/workforce housing once everything has been approved, Due
to their complex nature and the changing housing and mortgage markets, it is impossible to
predict what will be available at the time of construction, The developer has and is agreeinz to
enter into an agreement with Collier County to assure the construction of the
affordable/workforce housing units, However, it would be detrimental to all parties to do so
prior to having a set construction schedule as these programs change from year to year,
Therefore, we ask that such an agreement be drawn up prior to the issuance of the first
building permit so it may reflect actual conditions at the time of development. The statement in
Exhibit E, Item "4,13" has been revised to insure compliance, as follows:
8, Developer will enter into an agreement with the 130ard of County Commissioners for
implementation of the required affordable-workforce housing units prior to
development. Due to the complexity of the subsidy programs that are needed to
develop the affordable/workforce housing units, and the availability at the time of
development and the need to reneet the actual conditions relating to the housing and
mortgage mal'kct, this agreement shall be due prior to the issuance of the first building
permit.
Staff Findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14, 2010: Acknowledged, with a
caveat.. Lxhibit L, Affordable Housing Development Commitment, Itcm "4,8" on pages 14 of
18 and 15 of 18 provides this langwlge, However, this language may not provide the certainty
necessary - with its use of the phrases "enter into an agreement..." and ",..this agreement
shall be due prior to the issuance of the first building permit" - to elearly indicate the approv,,]
and completion of such all agreement will be required in order to be issued the first building
permit. This lan"\1a,,e may \1ced to be 1I10dified to enS\1re the finalization of the Affol'd"l1Je-
\-Vorklt"l1'cc Houshl'? Reauirel11t'nt A21'eEmEnt occlIrs before buiJdilw.. permits are issued..
. Provide a commitment in Exhibit E, Development Commitments, to develop a minimum number of
residential units on the Cotntnercial Mixed-Use Tract.
Agent Response to Review 11 Remarks: Agreed to provide this additional COll1mitment
Staff findings based on Resubmitted Materials dated June 14, 2010: Acknowledged,
Development COlllmitment Item "7.D" 011 page 1501'18 provides this language.
NOTE: For their purposes, provide the Project Coordinator from the Zoning Services Section of the Land
Development Services Department \vith a complete set of PUD materials comprehensively updated to
malch those labeled "Revised June 14,2010".
(o': /\fir/hle! Boy!. .-lJC/~ COIll/Jrc!iel1.lir'(' P/allllil<~ /\Lllh~~('f; CO/ll/m:!iouil'l! /)!allllil7f!, Sedioll
nal'iel Ir"l!l,fJ.. . 11C/), GnJ1JJ/b i\l,II!I~f!,(,!!!CI!I i'H(//II{~('r, (J)!lJfmlICIlJil'c /)lil!1!U!~~ Jedio1J
[rillzdlll rJ)n'J1~'.' }Jl~, nin'dm; Laud /)Ct-'c/O/J1l101! J('rl'i~"(:J' ! )c/h1111llenl
I\I!J1JJOlld Bd/ml/J. l)l~lIlf!i1~~ /\!tll/(~~(,/: /'!)I1i1~( S('f7'ir'('.!' Sed/Of!
I {deli Cidco. Scdi()Jj Chi~j! Lmd (r,lf-Trtll1Jpm1alio!1, (!ilia (!/ Ihe LfJllll!r _ It/orll~T
en/ 1'1 j i!;Jiir
G.\Consistency ReviewsI2010IPUDZ\PUDZ-2004 AR-6829 Davis Reserve REV 11b.doc
PUDZ-2004-AR-G829
Davis Reserve MP11D - Re,'iew lib
- 12-
<(or--
O)~D
O~
ON<+--
Z .0
-ctG)
"'-"'-0
a3 '-('J
== 2 ill
ruE 0>
'0 m
C~CL
"'Q)
0>0
<(
(: DT
, ,
y /
1/
, l
~ I ,/1 Cl 2
I -~,,-
\~ f~'" I 0_ J I,
/, ( , cl~
[\\~\""""~{(~'f'l __:'
:Tr~~ 1 I ri~~ - ~-
",).-1_ // ~
>- /~ .~:; ~--' ~
'o~ ~~-C-'J;t-:-l _'
~b:-::/'~.<< ~
II
r- Ii
W~. I
I- -(,
VJ g)
LU ~
~===--
~..
. I[~~
-I '-'
I
"-
,,'
---_._-~ :~ ~
!'
~~
~ 0 ^
.... :;>;fi
:::> "-
c. ~ ~
UJ
j
,
I.Ij
g
~
,
93
_J"
Ll.. ~
L!_",
o ~'
UJ
-,---
-I
,I
,I
"I
I
1
I
I
1
,
1
,
L ~~-)-\
I '~~, ( _ ..,
\-- "I--~r-("I\
'(- --\~I _,
\--_\~r _.\-
,,--------
,
g i
n :-
&
;
~
o
~;
(
,,,,
'~OH ~>!~~ AJN"Ol
""'IN'"
,.,,',~ ~I", I~
r-
I
~;:
,
\.
'r:"
~
L1-
~
~
n'~'.OlJnN /___1__
-
~
w
c-
"
<'J
/e:j: I'l!;
'''';''_'' '<'W',
,,,il,"< ::;
- ;)l';'
t';' t''''>~''{8;;1
I ":c; I, ~
I ~'~_ ! () 0 !
; , : rr: 0 I
i n. --.Ji >.
-!~ liJ ~~'i 5~
~~ I.
_JI'
],:
'"
,
..-L_
f,
r<< r-;,'>~;"..",,(," H< IOC
"
;~ 1 ~ ::';
~i I ~ ':j
i ':1
I 3
~
~
,
<3
".-;
~ .0
z
w
o
~
o
<'J
:a
,
"
~ ~-
---l~
_J
Pi
"
~ '
'1 ~
'e; !
!
,
~.~
,
"b'
11LT- .J-
: I ...l.!.-
0..
<(
2
<.9
z
z
o
N
d
",I
CD!
"',
:1
0,
~I
N
o
::>:
n..:
:;:t:!
z
o
>-
c-
W
0.
0..
<(
2
z
o
f-
<(
o
o
---l
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
(j)
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6968
. '" . .'APPPCATI()NFOIi,P(j~Llc~EA~IN9~qR:" '" .
qAfj\ENI)fj\~Nt to!'lJP(j>UP,6,f.~~lJg :R~Z'Qf'J~ (p~p,h cJpvP T9pUQ.RE~6NE(i>IJi>.Z.AI
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
/'ROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
[ PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Project #200401 0019
. DATE: 9/10108
(This page only)
c......................'...
'. . c. '_'.
" ,,- -', .
. - '.' .
APPL~C~T lNFORMATI(')N
NAME OF APPLICANT(S) COLLIER DAVIS, LlC
ADDRESS 250 CATALONIA AVENUE, SUITE 702 CITY CORAL GABLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 33134
TELEPHONE # 305-461-2330 CElL # 305-984-3595 FAX # 305-461-2346
E-MAIL ADDRESS:BGOLDMEIER@AOL.COM
NAME OF AGENT ROBERT ANDREA/COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
ADDRESS 3106 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34104
TELEPHONE # 239-643-2324 EXT. 134 CELL # 239-436-7784 FAX # 239-643-4364
E-MAIL ADDRESS:RANDREA@CECIFL.COM
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF
ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD R0'-lone Ol/L8J07, rev 2/1V08, rev 7/11108
L
ASSOCIATIONS
Complete the following for all Association{s) affiliated with this petition, Provide additional sheets if
necessary.
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: NAPOLI LUXURY CONDO PROPERTY ASSOCIATION. INC,
MAILING ADDRESS 1850 FLORIDA CLUB DRIVE CITY NAPLES STATE -EL ZIP 34112
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: GLEN EAGLE GOLF & COUNTRY ClUB. INC.
MAILING ADDRESS 1514 GLEN EAGLE BLVD, S, CITY NAPLES
STATE ~ ZIP 34104-8776
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY ClUB
MAILING ADDRESS 7890 NAPLES HERITAGE DRIVE CITY NAPLES
STATE Fl ZIP 34112
<for---
cO.,--.o
0"'1
1. '" 0 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: TERRAClNA GRAND
ct~
E ~.
;!! [jjc~ MAILING ADDRESS 6825 DAVIS BOULEVARD CITY NAPLES STATE~ZIP 34104
-- _D (])
ms::CJl
.0 m 'J.'i
c; U 0_
~.. 'D NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION: FALLING WATERS MASTER ASSOCIATION
,~:)Cl
MAILING ADDRESS 2338 MAGNOLIA LANE
CITY NAPLES STATE-ELZIP 34112
NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION: BERKSHIRE LAKES MASTER ASSOCIATION
MAILING ADDRESS 495 BELVILLE BOULEVARD
CITY _NAPLES STATE -EL ZIP 34104
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: BERKSHIRE VILLAGE C/O NEWelL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
MAILING ADDRESS 5435 JAEGER ROAD. #4
CITY NAPLES STATE -EL ZIP 34109
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: WINDSOR PLACE AT BERKSHIRE LAKES ClO ANCHOR ASSOCIATES.INC
MAILING ADDRESS 3940 RADIO ROAD. # 111
CITY NAPLES STATE -EL ZIP 34104
NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION: CROWN POINTE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
MAILING ADDRESS 1756 ROYAL CIRCLE
CITY NAPLES STATE -EL ZIP 3411 2
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: LAKE PORT VILLAS IN CROWN POINTA C/o ANCHOR
ASSOCIATION.INC.
MAILING ADDRESS 4100 CORPORATE SQUARE. STE, 105 CITY NAPLES STATE -EL ZIP 34104
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: RIVIERA GOlF ESTATES. HOA
MAILING ADDRESS 425 CHARLEMAGNE BOULEVARD CITY NAPLES STATE -EL ZIP 34112
NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION: EAST NAPLES CIVIC ASSOCIATION
MAILING ADDRESS .3823 TAM/AMI TRAIL EAST
CITY NAPLES STATE -EL ZIP 341 12
b. If the properly is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and
the percentage of stock owned by each.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Barry Goldmeier
250 Catalonia Avenue, Suife#606
Coral Gables. FL 33134
Lee Goldmeier
61 South Paramus road. Box 1765
Paramus. N.J, 07652
50%
50%
c. If the properly is in the name of a TRUSTEE, \istthe beneficiaries of the trust with the
percentage of interest.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
d. If the properly is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name
of the general and/or limited parlners.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 6/14/04
1:\DAT A\2002\02204\PUD Submittal Docs After September 2005\02204PUDApplication20050928.doc
<:=:!:~
co' c.,
O"'i'
,...,0.1.
2':0
- '1
E ~~?
,~2 ill (',J
-..0 OJ
ru 1= Cy\
D ~ Cry
Cm(1-
Q)U
cn)p
<1.. <-)
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
Percentage 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
g. Date subject properly acquired k'.;J 7/28/03 leased D Term of lease _yrs./mos.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option:
Date option terminates:
for
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.
Application For Puhlic Hearing For PUD Rezone 6/14/04
I:\DATA\2002\02204\PUD Submittal Docs After Septemher 2005\02204PUDApplication20050928.doc
PROPERTY LOCATION
Detailed legal descrilltion ot the Ilroperty covered by the application: (IF space is inadequale, aHach
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
(compleled within Ihe lasl six montbs, maximum I" 10 400' scale) iF required to do so al 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 --..f2~~~ 26E_
Lol:
Block:
Subdivision:
Pial Book
Page #:
Property 1.0,#: 00403880005,00404520005,00404560007,
00406560005,00405560006
Metes & Bounds Description:
Please see attached Legal Desgilltion
Size of IlrOllertv:
ft,X
ft. = Total Sq, Ft,
Acres
22,83+
Address/gcnerallocatioll of subject Ilropcrty: __
Southeast comer of Davis Boulevard and Countv Bam
Road
PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): 0 Residential 0 Community Facilities ~ Mixed Use
o Commercial
o Industrial
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Zoning
land use
E
W
CFPUD
RMF-G__
Brettone Park - Residential/Golf Course/Assisted Care Living Facility
Berean Church: Vacant/SeaCJest!Jm:ler and Lower School
Vacant/Seag:est Upper and Lower Schc,gl
Florida Club Apartments-Residential
N
P1JD: DRl
5 Estates, CFPUD
Does the owner of Ibe 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
separale page),
Section/Township/Range
L
/
Lol:
Block:
Subdivision:
Pial Book_ Page #:
Meles & Bounds Description:
Property 1.0,#:
~t~\\li.O -
\ 9. - \ 1.'U'U'n
~\j\3 1.
Application ForPllblic Hearing For .PUD Rezone 6/14/U4
l:\DA T A \2002\02204\MUPl JD _ RAl# J _ 2006\Q2204Revised _Page _ PUD__Application2006051 O.doc
<(01---
00.,-0
O""T
n,,!,~
Z .0
-T
E~'n
- ~
QJ '- C'.J
~" UJ
---...0 CD
ru.c Dl
TJ "-.. CD
c. Cll"
(Jj U '-
';.IUJ
.01.: CJ
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE NW l/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF TlIE NW 114 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS
THE WEST 50 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4, AND LESS THE NORTH 75 FEET, (LESS AND EXCEPT
PORTION WAS NOT PROVIDED IN LEGAL DESCIUPTION)
AND
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST. (LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 75 FEET
THEREOF - NOT INCLUDED IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION).
AND
THE W 1/2 OF E 1/2 OF N 1/2 OF S 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
AND
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 75 FEET
THEREOF.
THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8.
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
ALL TlIE ABOVE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CONTAINING 22,83 ACRES OF LAND MORE OF LESS.
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERV A TlONS OF RECORD,
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 6il4/04
I:\DA TA\2002\02204\MUPUD _RAW8-June 2008\9tb Reyiew Changes 9.18-08\02204PUDApplicatlon _ Rev20090 I06.doc
REZONE REQUEST
I
This application is requesting a rezone from the
PUD zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property: Vacant Land
Estates
zoning district(s) to the
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property:
Mixed Use POO
Original PUD Name:
Ordinance No.:
l:::"'::';';:;i.i:,:::::ir:::''';;'-:I:,:
',. ....; ;' .' . .EVALUATION!CRITERIA
iii',::::'"~
.. ....
".-- ....."..
. ........"..'.-,
. - ". - ., ..' - .. ,-.
t-":":""':::"::i
'<::i:'j':
",.!
n. .
;:r:::'
"'1
..
Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County land Development Code, staff's analysis and
recommendation.lo 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 (LOC Section 10.02, 13.B)
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pallern of development proposed in relation to physical
characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traFfic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other
utilities.
TIli;s area is well suited for this type of develop111ent. Existing sinf2:le~fanlilv and multi-ffullilv
development is located along both Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road.
The subiect property also has good access given the amount of frontage available to this
property, Access will be directlv from Davis Boulevard and. in order to minimize turning
conflicts. access onto County Barn Road will be aligned with exisfing access from the soufh
side of the property,
All utilities are currentlv available to the site, Both water and sewer capacity is available from
the County and anv-onsite imgrovemenfs needed fo .provide these services will be dedicafed to
the County,
Stornlwater drainage will be provided via a network of detention areas and wetlands, The
runoff will be directed info the detenfion areas and through a weir back into the County
svsfem on County Barn Road. During large runoff events storm wafer will discharge info the
wetlands after water quality treatment which will further enhance the existing wetlands. which
are marginal. now,
Application For Public Hearing For POO Rezone 6fl4/04
I:\DATA\2002\02204\PUD Submittal Docs After September 2005\02204PUDApplication20050928.doc
qOt'-
ro~o
0,,"
nC'J"~
Z .0
~:!~:
W'-('J
-" '"
-.() CD
ru E ell
U (j) rv
~ uo-
CJ)p
.-.:.(u
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 attorney.
Presently. the property is under unified controL Any operafing and maintenance agreemenfs or
documents for the creation of any entity to provide operation and mainfenance of common
areas and facilities not dedicated fo the County will be provided at fhe time the owner submits
subsequent development plans.
3.
Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growfh
management plan.
The proposed PUD meets the goals, obiectives and policies of the Collier County Growth
Managemenf Plan, The proposed 1'00 is consistent with the Growth Management Plan as
required by Policy 5,1 and other policies under Objective 5 of the GMP including Policy 5.4
which relates fo compatibility to surrounding land uses. and Policy 5_6 which "Permit the use
of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, '" and other
innovafive approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive
areas"," Furthermore, it meefs Policy 5.4 which states "New developments shall be
compatible with. and complemcntaIYJQ"Jhe surronnding land uses, subiect to meeting the
compatibility criteria of the Land Development Code"."
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.
TIlere are no incompatible uses proposed for this PUD. All bufferUlg and landscaping
requirements can be met as detailed in the 1'00 Document and the 1'00 Master Plan,
5, The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development.
We will meet tile County's Open Space requirements, All open space and common areas will
be accessible fQ residents and will be designed witl1in the development to give the feel of a
more fradifional neighborhQod, Yards and parking ~ill be designed to enhance fhat concept by
providing parkjng in the rear of residential units and smaller front yards wifh on-street
I1arkillg,
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The project will be developed in one phase, and infrastructure and improvements will be
provided at the time of development
7, The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The subjecf property will adequatelv accOlmnodate the proposed uses as listed in the PUD
document The surrounding area has a number of vacant parcels which mav be used for both
residential and mixed-uses due to the area's relafion to a mixed-use activity center subdistrict
and its residential density band.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 6114/04
l:\DAT A\2002\02204\PUD Submittal Docs After September 2005\02204PUDApplication20050928,doc
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the
particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal.application of such regulations.
The subiect PUD will conform to Collier Counfy requirements,
Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, mony
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. Noted
Previous land use petitions on the subiect propertv: To your knowledge, has 0 public hearing been held
on this property within the last year? [8J Yes D No
If so, what was the nature of that hearing? Como Plan Amendment ICP-2004-51 which created the Davis
Boulevard /Countv Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict.
NOTICE:
This application will be considered "open" when the determination af "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 processina or otherwise actively pursue the rezonina for a period of six r 6)
months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further 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.Q.)
Application For Public Hearing For POO Rezone 6/14/04
l:\DAT A\2002\02204\PUD Submittal Docs After September 2005\02204PUDApplication2005092&.doc
<.tat---
CD~O
D~:l
_; r"'~ '0
~~ ;: 2~
J1} We',1
--.D Ql
[IJ;::.: :JJ
-z., ~. 8
C ~) o_
m -.)
,~:'f~
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET
No. of Copies
~ 24*
~24*
~ 24*
~1
~24
~1
~2*
~1*
~4
~ 5*
~4
~7
Completed Application
Pre-Application Meeting Notes
legible Conceptual Site Plan 24" X 36"
Conceptual Site Plan 8 'I:z" XII"
PUD Document and Master Plan
Check here if not reauired
o
o
o
o
o
o
[]
o
o
o
o
o
24" X 36" Master Plan
Warranty Deed or Contract for Sale
Owner/Agent Affidavit, signed & notarized
Environmentallmpae! Statement or waiver
Aerial Photos with Habitat Areas Identified
Utility Provisions Statement with Sketches
Traffic Impact Statement or waiver
"" .
l2SJ4
04
~4
04
~4
~1
~1
~2
~
Historicai Surveyor waiver
n
LJ
Architectural Rendering of Proposed Strue!ures
Boundary Survey, no more than 6 months 0Id(24" x36")
Copies of State and/or Federal Permits
Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, if applicable
Electronic Copy of PUD Document & Plans
Copy of letter notifying the U.S. Postal Service of proiee!
Addressing Checklist
Required Fees
~
D
~
D
D
D
* Olle additional copy required iffor Affordable Housing
As the authorized ageuUapplicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on
this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all
necessa mi~n~atiray result in the delay of processing this petition.
~52!d~ //---Y-6?S-
AgenUApplicant Signature Date
Application For Public Hearing ForPUD Rezone 6/14/04
I:\DATA\2002\02204\PUD Submittal Docs After September 2005\02204PUDApplicationl0050928.doc
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 Davis Reserve
(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 mixed use .
planned unit development lMPUD) zoning. We hereby designate BArr~ Go I rIm e / e r ,
legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as uch, these mdiVldua/s 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 gnided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the
project:
L
5,
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 tbe applicant in connection with the planned unit
development rezoning.
The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards,
and stipulations made at tbe 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,
A departure from the provisions of tbe 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
''\'''~r""l'''nrn",,"t r......-t'"
.L-'....YVAVt-'....'"'H~ '-'''''....'''.
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 tenns and conditions,
So long as this covenant is in force, Cnllier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the tenns,
safeguards, and condilions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel
compliance. 'Ibe County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the
planned unit development and file County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought
into compliance with all tenns, conditions and safeguards of the planned unit dcvelopment.
2.
3,
4,
Printed Name
..~t-
~''''
q,f (, . ~'\)~
\ 'l\'ll
..~\:l ~
r
4r~::~r~{-r3cL -~-f-<( ,~w-C01
Ql/(, '01 -vJoy)!i~<::'.~~
Printed Name
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
Sworn to (or affinned) and subscribed before me this ;3 rd day of .
Owner
,4\J~( ),.<,T , 2001<. by
~~
cY,kkl~ r
as identification.
(Serial Number, if any)
C:\Documents and Setlings\Owner\My Documents\Business\PartnershipICollier-
Dav;s\COVENANTOFUNIFIEDCONTROL8,1,06,doc
\\11I1I111 Karen Jy Taylor
"','Ie' PV"-_ ' , D353"5
g"'.?~.:t""'~<:;'~ CommlMlon # D It{)
=~: :~: <-ires: OCT, 01, Z008
..-;..>.' '9 ~ l..AJ.l
'-1i''''''ff.; Bo,d,d Tbru
"""P.~,~,,'" Atlantic &.adlng Co., lac..
<(01"-
(0.,...0
0"1"
n ('J~_
Z .0
"1
E~;:j
ill ,~- ("'J
,- '"
-.0 '"
("I] >= OJ
11 ,- m
Cm(L
ll' U
C~)/P
'OJ.. ~.J
AFFIDA VIT
WelL Barry Goldmeier, Viee President of Goldmeier (NJ,) Corp., General partner of Goldmeier
(NJ,) Ltd., and Managing Member ofCoIlier-Davis LLC, beingfirst 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
Well 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/ljurther authorize Coastal Engineering Consultants, lne" Earthbalanee,
TR Transportation Consultants, lne" and Robert Pritt (Roefze] & Andress, LP A) to act as our/my
representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
sr;;;;;;::j:O:rty dwne:-
Signature of Property Owner
BauY Golwlleier
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
The foregoir;g instr~ument was acknowledged b~jiJre me this _ ?-{ t-0, day of '(/ --U..t';jJ
200'1, by (::>[1)'7 Y..tS <,tit __wJIO 1~.fJ.e.rsonally known to me or has produce
__ ___as identificatioll.
State of Florida
County of Collier
!
~!l{-:J ~
(Sign;;;"ur o/No.ta,y Public - State ofFl~rida)
Notary Stamp
..~~..h<~;
"'''''''' ROSA M. DURAN W
t~~m~;:U~;~\ Notary Pu.bllc . S.tale of Florida ~
,.' . .;r.,lyCommisslon ExplresAug 25,2010
~U); '" I ~~i Commission # DO 587909
~~~;~ 1'..1:JI:~~~
""'ff.",.'~ Bonded 8)' National Notary Ass".
~.. .
c
** AFFORDABLE HOU5ING**
"'EXPEDITED REVIEW'"
PUDZ.2004.AR.6829 REV: 9
DAVIS RESERVE
Project: 2004010019
Date: 8/27/08 DUE: 9/18/08
AFFlDA VIT
Well. Barry S. Goldmeier being first duly sworn, depose and say that well 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 Well
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/Ifurther authorize Coastal Engineering Consultant~. Inc.; Earthbalance.
lne.; Metro Transportation GrouP. Tuc,; Chisholm Architects. lilc,; and Roetzel & Andress to
act as our/my representative i~ any matters regarding this Petition
___.=r'.=il'~
Signature of Property Owner
P~?~A-!c\ me ;if
lypeu or Trllueu lvurne UJ vwner
Typed ur Printed lVame a/Owner
Theforegoing instrument was acknowledgedbefore me this 25)1D- day of s.,n\-f-'WI'rPf,
2005., by 1)-DfD.\S , B.oldm6cL___who is personally known to me or h~
. _~__as identification
State of Florida
County of ~jYr'Cllnl-bcde
Lndt/
(Sign tire of Notary Public - State of Florida)
NOTARY PUBUC.SWE OF FLORIDA
~ Crystal R. Mueller
Commission # DD419382
Expires: MAR. 10, 2007
Bonded Thru ~tlantic ,BonJ1iDg Co Tnr
Notary Stamp
RE-SUBMITT AL
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
PROJECT #2004010019
DATE: 11/9/05
MIKE BOSl
C:\Docurnents and Settil1gs\Crystal Mueller\Local Settings\Temporary lntefllet Fi1es\OLK29\02204Affidavit20050927.dQc
<( 0 f__
CO " 0
o ~:t
n(".)c>-
;;; . ()
- -:::t (<)
E"'-"I
i'~ W (\J
-.am
_~ E;:'J
'.- tV,'\)
~ ~.l [L
'_;'I:J~
<::i,c--.J
List of Corporation Owners
Collier Davis, LLC
Name of Owner
Barry Goldmeicr
1101 Brickell Avenue # 402B
Miami, FL 33131
Lee Goldmeier
61 South Paramus Road, Box 1765
Paramus, NJ, 07652
J :\DA T A \2002\02204\02204Corpomtl:OwnersList20040806.doc
Percenta2e of Ownership
50%
50%
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
PROJECT #2004010019
DATE: 11/23/04
MICHAEL BOSI
Divisian ofCarparations
Page 1 of2
Florida Limited Liability
COLLIER DAVIS, LLC
c.._.._____.._._______..______.._.______.______.______,-----.--.~-------
PRlNCIPAL ADDRESS
1101 BRICKELL AVENUE, SUITE 402-B
MIAMI FL 33131
~
MAlLINGADDRBSS
po BOX 279
KEY BISCA YNE FL 33149
Changed 03/24/2003
Document Number
L02000023507
FEI Number
113652086
Date Filed
09/1112002
State
FL
Status
ACTIVE
Effective Date
09/1012002
Total Contributiou
0,00
eglstere gent
I Name & Address I
GOLDMEIER, BARRY S
110] BRlCKELL A VENUE
402-B
I\1lAMI FL 33131
I .. I
Name Changed: 04/30/2004
I Address Changed: 04/30/2004 I
R
dA
M
1M
b D
'1
anager em er etm
I Name & Address II Title I
GOLDMEJER (NJ) LTD... B
1000 MARINER DR
KEY BISCAYNEFL 33149
I!
Annual Reports
Report Year !i Filed Date
!I
l-.+t......I,nmrm ..."......1,;,..,. i"'l...rT/C',........;~"'+C"/,....^....r1At P.VA?':> 1 =np'TH'TT ,qrn 1 =T ()')nnO()?1,\()7Rrn'J=l\.T Al'\/fp,\:vnRrn1=OOOOX,n
R/h/?()()L
Division of Corporations
<1,'or--
C()r-O
.0-;-
o"J,,-
'7 .0
'-:: -:t 11")
E r- C'J
(1J '--("..1
_.. Ql
-.0 '"
(U ,-- en
DiGm
ft5 u 0_
'T:~)
<,i..~J
Page 2 of2
l:
03/24/2003
04130/2004
'I
I
II
II
2003
2004
R.eturn to Lis! .. )
No Events
No Name History Information
I Next Filing J
, Previo~s Filing
Document Images
Listed below are the images available for this filing.
04/30/2004 -- ANNUAL REPOR_T
03/24/2003 -- ANN REPIUN}FORM BUS REP
0911112002 -- Florida Limited Liabilites
THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL RECORD; SEE DOCUMENTS IF QUESTION OR CONFLICT
'hth....llr".....".'f...' .....nh~'7 r\"....../C',~.....;.....+<,I""...{-l"'t .on.......')" 1 =llr~'Tr;'TT R,,, 1 =T n'1()nnn'71 "n7 X',-n')='J\.T ^ 1I.IfP,"XTT1J?,-n1=nnnn.Rrn
R/"n()(1il
','
71/0,/5,:;2000:;-
),/0&5r,,0005
. .
3254820 OR: 3391 PG: 2148
UCOLDID In omcm mOllls 01 COLLlII coum, IL
U/DI/lDOl It Dl:ll!ll DilGBl .. !lOCl, CLlil
COIS mm,GI
DC III IUD
DOC-.lD mUD
Prepared by and recorded copies
should be sent to:
Karyl Agudo Argamasilla, Esq.
WEISENFELD & ASSOCIATES, PA
550 Biltmore Way, Suite 1120
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Iltn:
nunOLD i ISSOC
\II mlXOU ill 11m
COUL Wtll 1I1l111
SPECIAL WAFIRANTY DEED
8"~ iu.\,\
THIS INDENTURE, made this _2 - day of )me, 2003, between
MALlNMORE CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, whose post office is 8181 NW 36
Street, Sui Ie 27-C, Miami, Florida 33166 (hereinafter referred to as 'Grantor") and
COLLIER DAVIS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company. whose post office address is
550 Biltmore Way. Suite 1120, Coral Galbles, FI 33134 (hereinafter referred to as
"Grantee").
WITNESSETH:
That the said Grantor, for and in consideration nf the sum of Ten and No/100
Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration. to it in hand paid by the
said Grantee, the receipt w\1ereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and
sold \0 the said Grantee, its heirs, executors, administrators. successors and assigns
forever, the following described land, situate and being in the County of Collier, State of
Florida, to-wit:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO
AND MADE A PART HEREOF
SUBJECT TO:
1. Taxes and assessments for tile year 2003 and all subsequent years,
2. Conditions, covenants, restrictions and easements filed of record,
3. The Permitted Exceptions more specifically set forlh on Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and made a pari hereof.
TOGETHER with all of the tenements. hereditaments, privileges and
appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining.
And the Grantor hereby covenants; with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized of
said land in fee simple; that it has good ri,lht and lawlul authority 10 sell and convey said
land', that it hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against
the lawlul claims of all persons claiming by, through and under the said Grantor
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the Grantor has caused these presents \0 be executed
in its name the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
f ii,/' -
~'C,--u. c ,-:f, &t fTV.-cc': . t--:'
LtH)lD I-\~reno Il'n:ol ro-
Pri \ or Type Name
\-
\
SELLER
t
RE-SUBMITT AL
PUDZ-~004-AR-6829
PROJECT #2004010019
DATE: 1119105
MIKE BOSI
"
<(ot--
co~o
0,,"
OC"!,+-
Z"'1~ 0
r::.,,-I..
__ ,-'-J
~!,; m ('-J
-- ..D Q)
m,... .::I)
~fiiD
ill ,~) 0_
Ci,Q\
<(0
. .
" .
OR: 3391 PG: 2152
EXHIBIT '''A''
llescrip~~I0ge~Y
The \\ (;t :; elf \E I '4 of ','E 1'-+ elf ['-vi \/4 of Section 8. Township SO SouIh. Range 26 East,
The ,,-W H JfSE 1':\ of"':E 1 4 of:,;W 1'4 LlfSecl10n 8, Township 5C SOUTh, Range 26 East
1 "', ~,)r\h 75 Feel for D"vil Boulevard Right of Way /;
Ailoltlie above propen) \, lo~ated in Colli<" County, F\or~dy
fo,," C'L" 00404520005 and 00406560005 /-/------
~nd
.. '. "
,P <:
(.
i\'
."-".
. ~ "J'
:~, '
OR: 3391 PG: 2149
<(0 f'-
ro,,-O
0--;1-
nN,-+-
Z ,0
~ ":to)
I.::: -.:- ('~
QJ '-(".J
~-~ ill
--.0 clJ
((J E 1_TJ
;2 tV (\1
ii uD-
U)t])
<t. c.J
)
~-;-'
,,'
'f'
)j~"x
-;P '. /
44,
.~:~7J""
I.,
'1
)-.'
,
~'i
,,'1
~-:"
~ ,.
/1:". I
/"!r ":"/'} ,'.,,:: ,
,,~ - ..;;
- /' -
j,.,
:.1""
,J:"'::."1C
I
'I~:_.~
it:
:1{,
L f;__.....:.....:..,.~ :..~ ,~
Hi-I,.!!,.
~-/.~ .!'J,ll/!...~.L~.:.:_~_
.. .~ _/:/ [!(j'~.l;,?::y
"1 ';','In
...':\!,;
,;,1,1
!;~I
t;,;~
)'".
l'
i.
i '~I
>~
~;
-,
\
OR: 3391 PG: 2150
I:' ,
I 2 J .J '-
/;/<ry,J,. /,..-n.".....
/ ..:r t'Y'~
i~~-A~P
..4
.,.
t~~
:-~
'C/.
, , ,,:!j!.::-~!'
~,
-. /1-,,,_
?:J -\.1~-L_.:a'
,.~ ~ "..'''''...,.~~' ,", ..,,~ ,,-. .
.:!A.I~".~~, i ,..,...'~,.~ .
I!: .
d
lrf
,
'(
/~ 1_- "')
C> ,,/7'_":" D,,,,,,,.l
j 1/ tl".,1 _.)J2/ .,
. ':-;C/'I''l
...:.. ..~I'
~:;. f. .
,-:
")"'..-"l
...1
,
i.-i
,:l,
H';ef!1I
"'_'__4
_4':-~~~~:-'~.".
-'
OR: 3391 PG: 2151
[I.. cin:ulU S..~l CO:"'lltl th, top riQht ~ide or
tl'll! back ot u.etl p'"" and the upper left ,id..
of the nelCtFaga, ,nd,tatl:':
R[:POBL!C or COLOl'lIl!A
llO'l';\RY IIlh.Qibhl
01. s lei c:t 0 ~ I I 11_q iol c 1
H),.U.... "HC;;~1.), E\t"TIlU S~tHN POSADA 1
N.". l'>UnH U.JlIll 1'05),01.
J/;TIl WOTAP.Y or Tilt OISTUCT or
SJ.Hu' rt Ot aOGon., D.C. CO:'OI(lII"
SI"KATUJl.I: "OTIUHT1CAnC,N
on tho:' 21th tbv of JUf\.., 2(10), penonaUY 'Nle'tll.d ..\I.rllve Cleere' serrano
'o'no pro1uctd 11-001-111 1IoO:l:It. ,nd \oIlIO ,c'r;noIl1.OQ.d tholt the siQrutun
thllt llppear' on tllb doCUlIlnl 1. hil_ In \/1I.n..U "'~\!'lIlOf, h. dill" ,ne....
sl [Illegible!
5/1111eQlble]
H.J.. Bunt! SAIlIH I'OSI..OJ.
HOTAIlYPUBL1C
rin".rprint
.'
!LA. IIUTlU'r. SAlInl P051.0P.
36TH HorAn or '['lit Pl~"I:Rl':'l' or
SAlfU, rt ot !lOGO'U" D.C. cc:.LOHBl"
SlGH",!UU: AOTRtJlTICA-Tll)H
On th~ 21th daY 01 Jun~. zeo:!, peCBon:allY :a';:.pured LIIlU Hilena \(orll'''O
Peulu whO producad 11~OOl-"'/1l ItJaqut .H.d .~h~ ad:noll1ed'j"fld that th.
,iljl"ll.turt: tnat lppe&U on tn1l doe\J1ll."t h tura. l:n II1.tnefll wr.ufloL
line 1I1qn! fln'"'
Sl I rlle~101."
S I ~ I 11 0" 10 1 el
N.". !ID.TUt SA-H1Jl P05.1o.0J.
1l0rAU P08Lle
r i nql~ rpr in t
Il.A. Bn.nn SIJIUI POSl\CA
:W:'tl >lOU!l.Y or lKI: OISllUt:1 OF
SAlin. rt Ot i>OGOU, O.C, CQLOK1HJ,
S:IGH,,'!:O"R.t J,l,T'!MENtlCA'l'IOIl
On the 21th d.V o~ June. 2UO), p~r.IHldh' IPP'Jlnd Tunando "dlllundi
who produced 11-001-'71l )oQ"ot! ,ll,d IIho Ol~kr.ol/lfrdqed that the 11qnlture
thH appeau on thiJ doeumllnt I!, hi., In \o'itneu whereof, \'It JlqnJ. ane\t.
so' plleqibleJ
51 lIlhgl.bh:1
M.A. IltA7P.H SAIlIJl POSADA
JlO'l'A~'l: PUB!..lC
t"lnQ"o:rprlnt
SThTE or fLOP-IDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-OADE
Before me, the underslgned authority, penonally appeared GRETCHEN M.
MEJIA, who i8 peI.-5.Q~~~ly. know12_ te_..~~ 01" who produced a
far identification, and ",ho,. .Il.ft~lr fil:,t being duly s....orn, depo.ge.s and s::.at:e.'l
that .9he i~ fluent in tht! [.ngU,h bnd Spanish languages and is duly qualified
to tr::anslate from the spanish to the Lngl1.sh language: that she made tlle above
translations and that sarno: are a true and complete translation of the origin...:
seal and acknowledgments, which she had before her, written in the spanis~.
l,ngo,o" /I:It
G TCH[.N H. M[.Jl~
SWORN 1'0 AND SUESCR:BED be for":! me thi.!l,:.~ day of"
.i
2003.
,JI{C\'"' ,
print Nat1\~: ,....
NOTARY PUBLIC
,
My commission Expires:
i'
!t'1 r (ri 1:;_:.,,:ti\y'.>EAl
o'!'- u~~ ;,a;.r:.J. CUIiP.L\ .
. \l~-:' "J.:-;
.-:. t,1i!1;;.. .r
7...... ;;;; ~.[J
Qf <'.
,.
.,
~"""..'::''='' I'....B(1).
':CGB3:J,.l.2
-o"J'5S'""'c~PIAf.:;
. '.;..:;
_ -....:.~--'
"
Hi OR: 3391 PG: 2153 xU
EXHIBIT "B"
PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS
1. Easement in favor of Florida power /> Lighl Company, contained in inslrument
recorded April 22, 1974 in Official Records BooK 587, al Page 273, of Ihe Public
Records of Collier County, Florida.
2. Easement in favor of Flonda power 1\ Light Company, conlalned ',n instrument
recorded September 10, 1981 in Official Records BooK 937, at Page 477, of lhe
Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
3.
Easement in lavor of Lee M Vaughn and Lew H. Vaughn, Iheir herrs and
assigns, conlained in instrument recorded October 1, 1 973 in Official Records
Book 553, al Page 507, oflhe Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
Easement conlained in Warranty Deed recorded in Official Records Book 914, at
Page 1054,01 the Public Records of Collier Counly, Flolida.
<{Ol--
co---o
Oct
o f'-J 'I--
Z . ()
ct
1= ,-,,-
- 0"
~ Q)f"-f
-.0 Q)
u, .-- '-)1
-~ 53 6:
~1!, as
"(
~::. ._J
4.
1103-04
',",,' - " 'II" . ';'111,
. ' , . ,
I
00";02:",80005:
3254822 OR: 3391 PG: 2162
mORDlO tn OPIlCIlL Rimos o[ COLLlII COUNTT, 1\
n9/09/100J at 01:121N OYIGNT I, BROC~, cml
CORS 5l5111,OO
m Pi! 21.\0
00C-,10 mUD
Prepared by and recorded copies
should be sent to:
Kaf)'1 Agudo Argamasilla, Esq.
WEISENFELD & ASSOCIATES, PA
550 Biltmore Way, Suite 1120
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Retn:
ViI smm , moc
\SO BILTKOR! Y!l 11110
CORAL GABLIS 1\ lJIlI
Reserved
SPECIAL WARRI\NTY DEED
) ojl, J I
THIS INDENTURE, made this U -- day of . U ~ ' 2003, between
DAVID HOWARD GOLDBERG, as CuratDr Df Ihe Estate Df Ronald Lett, Deceased and
MALlNMORE CORPORATION, a Florida CDrporatiDn, as tenants in common, whose
PDst Dffice is 8181 NW 36 Street, Suile ND, 27-C, Miami, Florida 33166 (hereinafter
referred to as "Grantor) and COLLIER DAVIS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
whose post office address is 550 Biltmore Way, Suit~_.1120, Coral Gables, FI 33134
(hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"),
WITNESSETH:
That the said Grantor, lor and in consideratiDn Df the sum of Ten and No/100
Dollars ($10_00) and Dther gDod and valuable cnnsideration, tD it in hand paid by the
said Grantee, the receipt whereDf is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and
sDld to the said Grantee, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns
forever, the following described land, situate and being in the County of CDllier, State of
Florida, to-wit:
SEE EXH!BIT "A." ATTACHED HERETO
AND MADE A PART HEREOF
SUBJECT TO:
1. Taxes and assessments for the year 2003 and all subsequent years,
2. CDnditions, covenants, restrictiDns and easements filed of record,
3 _ The Pennilted ExceptiDns mDre specifically set forth on Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
TOGETHER with all of the tenements, hereditaments, privileges and
appurtenances thereunto belDnging or in any way appertaining,
And the Grantor hereby covenants with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized Df
said land in fee simple; that it has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said
land; that it hereby fully warrants the title to said land and wilt defend the same against
the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, t!hrollgh and under the said Grantor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed
in its name the day and year first abDve written_
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence Df:
,~ Lw'"i.vo ,- i'l ~_ '
L G ct nI e -' 1I H a ,- ,,- ,-t!
Print or Type Name
( \
-I -"", ~ \( )
~ - \ -y
~~_0::0_~~,~~c; fu~~ M~0\ \\C'- ..'
I
(
, ,..-,- .~
./'----
.'
David Howard Goldberg, as Curatarfor-
the Estate Df Ronald Lett, Deceased
,
OR: 3391 PG: 2163
[CONTINUATION OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
FROM DAVID HOWARD GOLDBERG AS CURATOR
FqR THE ESTATE OF RONALD LETT DECEI\SED
JlIND MAlINMORE CORPORATION, AS TEWINTS
IN COMMON, TO COLLIER DAVIS, LLC]
Signed sealed and delivered in
the presence of:
<(Of-"
co ,. C)
~ ?"'i"
(,,'.J,,-
Z .0
-7
E ".- (0
C'J
0....-('..l
~., Ql
~.n t1J
-,.:5 E ~)
ro' ClJ[L
ill U
-, Q)
~,{CJ
J 'f' it;", c ,
I <: ~ '" '. .,
LOl 'l<r r-k--'\CI'l~~ le"j[ 1 (-;1,
MAlINM~rORPORATION,
a Flori :~~. fa,on,
/ / /
By: ,/{'/Iu/
Gustavo C ceres S" Pre dent
(...cv,;);
cPV, D ;1 P{-:".~
or Type Nate
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE
~I
_ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30 -==- day of _
J u I L , 2003, by DaVId Howard Goldberg, as Curator for the Estate of Ronald
Let!
l(M)RDES...... NAP;RUtO
My Comll'l [.Ifl, 10/'AAl~
No, DO{l5Il..(ao,'
1!"-""""'t~Wtl\i..I,tl
j: W ,-d<.CJ ~1Ji - ~jL_~/
NOTARY PUBLIC
..:c~~
C~,
Produced Identification
L
[NO
'EAL]
Personally Known
OR
Type of Identific~tion Produced
cJ",v'C/
1',u,,>Z
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~_ day of _
,2003, by Gustavo Caceres S., as President for Malinmore Corporation.
a Florida corporation, for the purposes therein "el forth.
[NOTARIAL SEAL]
NOTARY PUBLIC
Personally Known
OR Produced Identification
Type of Identification Produced
i.::l):...~. :
f.
~.4
~ 4 .
I.,
,-' ,,';":'21
. ~t%:~~-/~' .
-' ") ,...... /'
./ .
)
$....
i
J, ..i/')
", .;,.-'.
:" /.
,.' - , .1/-
-. I" . > r
I
,"_,'" '~"1ll.9":'
.; ,;(,.,,~~i!Jl "i"'~"
:..:"Ik"
r
I':
/; :1
U>C::,. ("-,'h'!
J, C;:~.-;:=~~/
.,., r. ":1
, ',v.lIne...l!!
, .
,-~ I" ,
"
;,
--,'~ 'C""'l"
, ;: ';~ .:.'c~';(~~o'!l; ~t;..
-,',,~
.-,'",',"-"",./..,
J:/. -;1 ej'.);t'"
"
",':
,""'1
._ . ,,-,.'t
:' .'r.-:'
.' ,...'1
! '~, ,d}~'~ I
OR: 3391 PG: 2164
/ I Z?
1-1 , ~ '. /\"J .~>~
J!.vj'C
1
"'1'
>11 '
/'" ~_~ dtj..,. _--D P
/
'/(?
-.<
,j.
~ :
,,'
;, ./.1
_:,l-a,-.!4,_.~_..:~'..!...c
.' ?.'ir.~'.d..:.2{;!')
,:..,:.;'-1: l:fl
',n I'le
1
l.. "
~
Hu~Up.
,.-,.~_ ';'-..' >.
...... ";1"
:(Of-
?c:; ~
r~ P,] ,,~
" 0
,::! LO
,,-' "f)
'~ (jj C>J
.ellD
'n E 0)
c.J cD Yl
D u rJ_
}l rjJ
(CJ
OR: 3391 PG: 2165
{A Clrcull:\f S~.l.l co"ec' the top Cl9ht ~Ilje DC
t.oe back DC ~ach pil~e ftnd the uppec Ie f [ ., l de
at th~ next pall". and ~r...t~~.
It!:PtlBLIC or CO[,OHBIA
NOTAHY I r ll.~'1ibl ~ I
Oi,t.rict of Illleqiblej
HARIA ANG!:LA II[ATIIl1: SJl.Nltl PO$Arll\l
H."'. B!:J\Tlllt S"lIHI POSADll
16TH NOTJl.RY Of TlU; DISTRICT or
SJl.lITA rr m: BOGOT1\.. D.C. [OLOHa1"
51GllATU1U: ....OTHl:NT1CATJON
On tl.,,=" ~~.Y~.!...i'~.~Q.Q1. p~[lonally app~'Hed GUH~"O ["C"fe, S'="E.~
~ho p~oduced ]1-001-171 Bo~~ anrl ~ho .cknoul~dg~d thftr the ,lqnature
th"t <lppeolu on thh docUJnont-u hJL In ~itn..~" I,heleo!. ho 8iQns <lne".
s/llll"'Qlble]
51 [llle-glble-1
ICII. Il1:AlllIZ 5AHIN PC1:;:'DA
NOT/U\Y PUBLIC
r!."g"lLT'1"n
K.A Bf-ATR11: SIININ POSADA
16TH llOTARY or TIlt DISTRICT :If
S/l"TA n: O[ 1l0GO'l"l,. (LC C01.CII-IBrI'
SIGNATURE Il.OTH[N,LCATIOIl
On the- ~1.~~___1?"~L_~~1, peuo,aily o'lppllAIed J,.~~~llf:ll/l Hotoeno
Pereira ...ho produced 1 i-007-111 Ib~Qlle .ann ...no IIcitnol,).edQod that the
5l\lfllltur" tr.;tt ftpp"ar.onthl'-dcCulI"mt Ie here. l n w Unel. uhereo!,
IIhe ! lQn, ~ne-w.
S,I III Leq I hI ~!
$/llIleqlblel
M,A. B~ArRIZ 5~Nr~ POSADA
1l0TARY PURLlC
rlnQ'nprlnt
)'..;1,. np,T1HZ ~Alilll POSADA
35TH NOTARY or THE Dr~Tf\IC; I)r
SAliU n: Dt !:lOGO,).. D.C:. COLOlillIk
SIGNi\"J"Ullr AtJTHl;IlT1C),TlOll
On the 2.r~-2~.:L(J,!....JLI~L_?q.o.). p~rRo".,ll.y ;tppe-Hed rern.l.mlo ArilJmendl
who p~nduc"rJ 11-001-771 nO,9 (ll I.. and ,,\10 "<:kno"led'Je-d-t'iV\i.-.t:t,--;-;i.qnlltur,,
tho'lt "ppellr.--;n--thTi-d~ull1(.-;t i! hl~, In witnll!lJ whl':reor. IHl .1qnll IIn('\,I.
51 IIll,.qlhlt]
51 (!:leQLbld
H.". B[An,n ~All!ll PO~J\OA
1l0T1I.RY rUBLIC
ring.npl'lnt
STATE or rLOR! OJ,
COUNTY OF r~lAMI-DJI.:JE.
BefoIO m'O, the undersigned Cll!tliod,:y, per!lonally appeared GRETCHEN M.
MEJIA, wl10 is per.sonally known to. me or ',,1:0 produced a
for ident.:flc21tior1, arid wno, aftAr'. firs1: t'eing duly 9wonl, deposes and states
that she is fluent in the English and Spanish languages and is duly qualif.ied
to translate from the Spanish to. tIle i-::'nglish language; ttlat she made the above
transl(!tion~ and that .'lame aTe a tnle and complete tr'ansl21tion of the orlglnal
seal and acknowledgments, \--.'hich _9he hed before fleI, writ:efJ in the Spanisr,
13nglla::j8.
!j';f<J1
-" , .
___c ~._._____
(~ftl::jtHSN H. MUlA
5WOR!; ~O l\~lC Sl'BS::::?!BE::De.~.:-:e ;ne ':.f,i51 L' day of
20C3.
~y ~~~'~~ ~~ ~x~lre5;
l-". '
1~'. ;'i f:r:,
. 1" r ',; \- _
? -;i n t - Nam;;~==-, i :'~-:--=0'.~.JTT I'~
NOTARY rU.JSL lC
l
r
OR: 3391 PG: 2166
LXfllUIT ",I"
1)r:5[1 !Qli.Q!L9Cl:r<l~r1S
flU' fIll' 1/4 ..Iille NE I/q,,' Ille l'l\\' 1/401 :,ecllOII B, 'I ownshlP '0 Soulh, Range 16 Easl, Ie,; Ille
"\0,,50 f,'" ..lllle fa" 11~['~lllc 0;\\ ,/~ ,.od I'"~ Ihe :;01lh 1\ [eel orlhe ,,10 1/4 ofth' NW 1/4.
J\Il\ln~ .\nd 1','11l):! 11\ ({I! lei C\,un1\.II"nda
:\ll'(ir:k :lhn",c I,r(ipi~n: l~ i[l~u\l.J In !.."r1111cr CUl1l1t;.. Fkllldi'o
r(,Il.. ;',,, o0403%~OD"s
..-_.--,~.__..~.._.-
PERMITTED E.XCEPTIONS
None
~.r ,-, I'
x3 ,;.. c.;
,Cl-1-
n ~-,.J....._
7- . <:)
;:::!-!""
!::: ('"1
~ we'j
- ...LJ <U
(\) ,C I.,i)
;;:: ill ('1
--;u [L
~)(?_;
*** OR: 3391 PG: 2167 ***
~.,," I
3254823 OR: 3391 PG: 2168
OBLD
OBLI
mill
DOC-,ll
IH!-,OOl
RHo:
~i]SiHPiLD I Assoe
\\0 mINORi lAY 11110
CORIL GAeLi; ~L JJIJ\
PURCHASE MONEY FIRST MORTGAGE
RieOROiO in ,he OffICIAL RiCORRS 01 COLLliR COUH!Y, fL
09/09/1003 ,t 07:121K OIIGK! i, BROC!, CLER!
Z8!!:t
THIS MORTGAGE Ithe "Mortgage") is made and entered into as of the _ day of July,
200.1, by COLl~IER DA VIS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Mortgagor"); whose
address is II OJ Brickell Avenue, Suile 402B, Miami, Florida 33131, and DA VrD HOW ARD
GOLDBERG AS CURATOR OF THE EST A TE OF RONALD LEfT, DECEASED whose
address is lJOO'SW. 2ND A VENUCMIAMU:L 33130 and MALrNMORE CORPORATION
whose address is c/o MICHAEL A CURREA, ESQ., 8181 NW. 36 Street, Ste, 27-C, Miami, FL
J] 1(,6 (the "Mortgagee"),
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Mortgagor is justly and lawfully indebted to Mortgagee in the total sum of
FOUR HUNDRED EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN AND 16/100
($408,857.16) DOLLARS (the "PrinCipal Amou11l"), as evidenced by those two certain
promissory notes in the total of the Principal Amount executed by Mortgagor and payable to the
order of Mongagec (the "Note") heJring the same date as this Mortgage and to be paid according
t() its terms with the Maturity Date of the Note to be five (S) years from lhe date of Closing (tbe
"Maturity Date") with the Note and MOr1g.age evidencing the loan from Mortgagee 10 MOltgagor
(Ihe "L"an"),
WHEREAS, MOr1gagor and all makers, endorsers, sureties, guarantors, accommodation
parties and all persons liable or to become liable with respect to the Loan are each included in the
term "Obligor", as used in this Mor1gage;
NOW. THEREFOKE, to secure the payment of the Loan and to secure the full and
faithfu I perfoOllance of Ihe covenants and agreements contained in the Note and this Mcrtgage ,
Mortgagor hereby grants, bargains, sells, conveys, assigns, transfers, mortgages, pledges,
delivers, sets over, \varrants and confirms to Mortgagee, and grants Mortgagee a security interest
in, all those certain lots, pieces, or parcels of land lying and being in Collier County, State of
Florida (the "Property"), together with the buildings and improvements now or hereafter situated
thereon, said land being legally described as follows'
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
TOGETHER WITH all and singular the tenements, hereditaments, casements, riparian
rights and other rights now or hereafter belonging or appurtenant to the Property, and the rights
(if any) in all adjacent roads, ways streams, alleys, strips and gores, and the reversion...Qr
reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right,
title, interest, property, claim and demand whatso',,'er of Mortgagor of, in and to the same and
every par1 and parcel thereof;
TO HA VE AND TO HOLD the above-described and granted property, appurtenances and
rights (referred to collectively in this Mortgage as the "Property") unto Mortgagee forever,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that these presents are upon the condition that if Mortgagor:
(a) shall payor cause to be paid to Mortgagee the principal and all interest payable in respect of
the Loan and any other sums secured by this Mortgage, at the time and in tbe manner stipulated
ir. the Note or this Mortgage, all without any deduction or credit for taxes or other similar
charges paid by MOr1gagor; and, (b) shall punctually perfonn, keep and observe all and singular
409957,16
\09857,16
]1.50
14]1.l5
811,11
- <. . '~I I I1II "11 .
;;' , II '.11 I ,
' . I I' '
, ", I
OR: 3391 PG: 2173
WIT]\;ESS the due e,eculiDn hereof"s [If the date first above written.
Signed, sealed and delilered
in lhc presence of
PURCHASER
,
ii' I !
I; _)J f".J....- . r\ ,
__':::.L.:..:..____~._______=___...______
COLLIER DA VIS, LLe, a Florida
limited liability company
L.:qr).,..:, J-1 )..!'frf'.
;;3;:' E:rint or T\~r;~'l\ame--'''~-~
O-::t .
') ('-.I ,,_
;i: 4: 0
r- _" G)
t::' ("")
:~ ~ ~~. -- __ \~-"";"-''' ..:. _\~~:'___~'C ~~~ I "
_m,c :J)
~ ~ [~ ~-~: (I \ \) ; c, /\ ~ i L A..
~;To '--'---~~'::-_---.l._...)-~--,-~._._"
".L, Print Of Ty'r)C Name
Bv GOLDMEIER (N]) L TO,
a Florida limited partnership. its
Managing Member
Bv GOLDMEIER (NJ) CORP, a
Floridawrporation, its General
Par1ner
By:-=_~. :C~
Nilriie Barry (joldmeier
Title: Vice President
ST ATE OF FLORlDc\
COUNTY OF 1\1L.\1\lI-DADE
"'5.6
The foregOing instrument was acknowledged before me, the undersigned, this~ day of
July, 2003, by Bany Goldmeier as Vice President ofGoldmeier (NJ) Corp, the general partner of
GoJdmeier (N.! ) Ltd. the Managing Member of Collier Davis, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company.
[]\;~~Io,""(R{)
," l,!yu.r.,mE~ lO,'q1()5
. ,
-::-. N[l Dr) GSA4BO
'-~"'_\ ~:J.';"""O"."!') "'''<>WI'' ~,..,., '0
'J I
(/1 (.1...c V1"{~) \'-I~I . --F,--~/
NOTARY PUBLIC
Personally Known ~_
OR
Produced Identification
Type of Identification Produced _..__..
--------- - _._-~.-----_..__.._--_._..._---------.~~-
II 1.l1'.W,WI" 11"',')\IXl'_'_IM.I';1'\I\I'~""
lr;;
II. MIfilIlll~1II1
, _',1" 'n"-' ~d .~t~--, l'., ,.':'. r~- -.. ': ~,
OR: 3391 PG: 2174
EXHIBiT "A"
Description of Property
The NW 1/4 of the NE 1/40rthe NW 1/4 of Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, less the
West 50 tcet orthe East'., oflhe NW 1/4, and less the North 75 feet of the NE 1/4 ofthe NW 1/4,
?lllying and being in Collier County, Florida.
All of the above property is located in Collier County, Florida.
Folio No. 00403880005
'."-"-'.
*** OR: 3391 PG: 2175 ***
EXHIBIT "E"
<( o\,-urchase Money Mortgage in favor of MALlNMORE CORPORATION in the amount of
00 0$1\45,6974 I
n (~4-
z--io
E;-:;:;:
2 ill ('-I
-.0 OJ
'g ~~rchase Money Mortgage in favor of DAVID HOW ARD GOLDBERG AS CURATOR OF THE
OJ
S''c!!SESTATE OF RONALD LETT, DECEASED in the amount 01'$346,178.55
-c
and
Prepared by and recorded caples
should be sent to:
Karyl Agudo Argamasilla, Esq.
WEISENFELD & ASSOCIATES, PA
550 Biltmore Way, Suite 1120
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
3254824 OR: 339t PG: 2176
RitOROIO In omctIL mOROS of COLLIIR COOlT!, IL
09/09/1003 at 01 : laM OilGBII, IROCI, CLBRl
COKS 4\1\12.00
RHcm 11.10
00C-,10 muo
00 JjaL)<;;(aOC!() 7
(',C) 11 () s:- ::;- (;> ()')(' b
Retn:
WBISBH1iLO I ISSOC
S50lILTMORBWlY 11m
I.:UKAJ, \iAHj"Jl~ !I. JJjJi
Re~erved
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
S'l!!
THIS INDENTURE, made this 1:....- day of July, 2003, between DAVID HOWARD
GOLDBERG, as Curator of the Estate of Ronald Lell, Deceased, whose post office is 900
SW 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130-3519 and COLLIER DAVIS, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, whose post office address is 550 Biltmore Way, Suite 1120, Coral
Gables, FI 33134 (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee").
WITNESSETH:
That the said Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and No/100
($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, to it in hand paid by the said Grantee,
the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said
Grantee, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns forever, thefoUowing
described land, situate and beinl) in the County of Collier, State of Florida, to-wit:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO
AND MADE A PART HEREOF
SUBJECT TO:
1 . T axes and assessments for the Year 2003 and all subsequent years.
2. Conditions, covenants, restrictions and easements filed of record,
3. The Permitted Exceptions more specifically set forth on Exhibit "B" attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
TOGETHER with all olthe tenements, hereditaments, privileges and appurtenances
thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining.
And tile Grantor hereby covenants with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized of said
iand in fee simple; that it has good right and lav.rful authority to sell and convey said land;
that it hereby fullywarTan\s the title to said land and will defend the same againstthe lawful
claims of all persons claiming by, thmugh and under the said Grantor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed
in its name the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered
In\ t?9 presence of:
/i f..uf~&,) 'I), '~~'---
SELLER
../~~,---_/-/
( ,
Vavid Howard Goldberg, as Curatorforthe
Estate of Ronald lett, Deceased
Leu cJ e.s H, tJ a (rr 17)
Print 6r 1)Je Nye,/'
.,' "-~_.' ("'-C"':;-'
-)
-y
i::o-n.J,i t\~Vfj{, ~rc\C1~flJ:~k/
Print r Ty e Name '-,
. -'''''''1"-''-'''
'CJ 1'_
) ,,--. C)
,C1-1
,r-,I,.<-
, .0
"'1".'(")
:"'-'"0"1
) '-""J
~ (I)
- .D
~ E
,', {lJ
G ~ii
,:lC::l
OR: 3391 PG: 2177
[CONTINUATION OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FROM DAVID HOWARD
GOLDBERG AS CURATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF RONALD LETT DECEASED TO
COLLIER DAVIS, LLC]
STATE OF FLORtDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me Ihis -=:5 0"-\ day of Juty,
2003, by David Howard Goldberg, as Curator for Ihe Estate of Ronald Lelt, Deceased
" ".-,,:;' .. iJ~U.'I0...J ~!~L~~_
NOTARY PUBLIC
DR Produced Identrfrcation
,.
Type of Identification Produced
(lr',v-p,., ;:C(rj:,(
H ~L1[1!,.I\I1\".IIO:>-G(;',::'\t.J[),\r.';'G
~i;~#i
,,~~~'~,
),:b;llfti
'(.
'~
"":';;"I~i;~
.;;.;(..~
\;il,:!!~
~ "', ~ .
, .
OR: 3391 PG: 2178
I':XII 1Il1'l' "1\"
DcsniIJ1101l oI1WCrl\'
Thl' ~\' 1',1 \11' Illl' SI:. I ;,llIi'lhl' NI'. 1/.1 \11' Ihl' NW 1/.1 "I' Seeti"" x, Township 50 South, R"nge 2()
hIS\.
,\lul
The Fast', "i'lhc NI'. 11,\ ,,1'lhl' NE 114 ilflhc NW li4 ili'Sccli"n R, T\1wnship:lO SCluth, R"nge 2fJ
Fast. \e;;s and l'\CCPl ing t!lcrCrrn11l the North 75 feet thereof.
..\11 "i'the "l1il\'C IHilpCrty is located in Collier County, Florida.
F\1li" Nos. ()il4()\S()()()()(, ami 00404SiJI)007
<Ot--
00--0
0""
nC'Jc~
"7 .0
-'-oct
e'" __.10
:--: "'-l
Ul '-'"(''.I
..J (I)
-- .D ill
(U ~ en
u~m
c (])O
U) ;_i -
-~) Q)
_~\J. L!
*** OR: 3391 PG: 2179 ***
EXHII!iLl "B"
PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS
1.
Quitclaim Deed to Collier County recorded in Official Records Book 165, at Page
354, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. (Road)
2
Warranty Deed to Collier Counly recorded in Official Records Book 202, at Page
693, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. (Road)
3.
County Deed to lhe State Road Department of Florida recorded in Official
Records Book 223, at Page 994; Official Records Book 227, at Page 423; and
Official Records Book 324, at Page 290, all of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, (Road)
4,
Easement in favor of Lee M, Vaughn and Lew H. Vaughn, their heirs and
assigns, contained in instrument recorded October 1, 1973 in Official Records
Book 553, at Page 507, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
5. Easement in favor of Florida Power & Light Company, contained in instrument
recorded April 22, 1974 in Official Records Book 587, at Page 273, of the Public
Records of Collier County, Florida.
6. Easement in favor of Florida Power & Lighl Company, contained in instrument
recorded Septernb8r 10, 1981 in Official Records Book 937, at Page 477, of the
Public Records of Collier Counly, Florida.
7. Resolution No, B7-66 (CWS-87-6) recorded in Official RecDrds Book 1259, at
Page 2, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
1103-06
~!:;t~~
~,.~~;~
"',Y.'i'1'~
,~1~~~
'li.-.1;i;n
'")~7~
" '-' " I ' " "
'.1 :', '.' - " I'"
I'. ,. I "
l'I'fZCIIASF ~I()NI:Y FIRST ~.1()RT(jJ\(iE
TillS \ II)R TC i..\(; E (111e "~I{\rl gage") is Illade and entered into as or Il1e ~~:~' day or .lul v,
2(111.;. hI' COLLIER 1)"\ \'IS, LI,(', a Florida limiled lii,bililY colllpany Ilhe "Mongagor"); whose
address is I Ifll Briel,ell ,henlle. SlIile -10213. ~1ian,i, Florida.1313 I, and DAVID HOWARD
l;OLDIlI:.R(i .\S t 'I :R..\TOR 01: '1'111' EST/ITE OF RONALD LETT, DECEASED (the
"\ I llrl ga ""'l' " I. II IH1se address is <)(10 S. W 2ND A VENUE, M lAM I, FL .1.1 DO;
WITNESSETII
\\'III'RI'..-\S. ~Iortg""or is jllslly and lawrully indebted 10 Mongagee in the SUIll or
TIIRI:!: IIl'NDRED FORTY SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT AND
~"il 00 is,,-l!>, In.5.' I DOI,LARS, as evidenced by one certain promissory nole in the said
princi pal amollnt e,eclIlcdhv Mortgagor "nd pnyable to the order or Mortgagee (tbe "Note")
bearing the :>,Ulle datc'as this 1\1ortgage and to be paid accurding to its terms with the Maturity
Dale of the Note 10 be I-,ve ('i) vears I'rom Ihe date or Closing (the "Maturity Date") with the Note
and J\:lortgage c\'idcncing the loan from MOl1gagee to Mortgagor (the" Loan");
\V1 IEREAS. i\,-1ortgago[" and all makers, endorsers, sureties, guarantors, accommodation
partie, and all persons liable or to become liable with res peel to the Loan are each included in the
term "Obligor". as lJsed in this Mor1gage:
~
NOW, THEREFORE, to secure the payment of the Loan and to secure the fiJll and
",thful performance of lhe covenants and agreements contained in the Note and this T\1ortgage,
..iorigagnr hereby grants, bargains, sells, conveys, assigns, transfers, mortgages, pledges,
delivers. sets over. \",'"arrants and confirms to Mortgagee, and grants Mortgagee a security interest
in, alllhose certain lOiS, pieces, or parcels of land lying and being in Collier County, State of
rlorida (the "Property"). together with the buildings and improvements now or hereafter s;tuated
thereon, ,aiclland being legally described as rollows
See ",hihit "..\" attached herclo and made a part hereor.
<"> ....... .c::; >a
=........- ,...,.
;.0 C> ........ ~
~ ~ ~
0:- 0<:0 <xo..
-~
~~-
~ --
=~~
~o =
-~
~.,., ...
- ~ ~
o:-~~
~ 0
'--'_r,
--
=
...... =_ a c:>
=z:: C> _ c>;I eel
--;I ~ ('"") 0:-.,....
TOGETHER WITH all and ,ingular the tenements, hereditaments, casements, riparian~ Co;;: - =
rights and other righls now or hereafter belonging or app~rtenant 10 the Property, and the righ~ ~ -
(if any) in all adjacent roads, WilYS slreams, alleys, strips and gores, and the reversion-..Qr _ ~ ~
rc\'crsions. remainder (lnd remainders. rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right~ ::: ~ ;;: ;:
title, interest, properly. claim and dem(lnd whatsoever ofM0I1gagor of, in and to the same an~ ~ ~ ~ ~
every' p,lrl ilnd pilrctl thcrcoC ' ,
TO 11,\ \'[, ..\ND TO HOLD the above-described a"d granted property, appurtenances and
rights (rden:l'd In colIeCII\"t:ly ;n this f\1ortgilge as the "Property") unto Mortgagee forever.
PRO\'tll!:D. HOWEVER, thallhcse presents are upon the condition Ihat ,I' Mortgagor'
(a) shall pal' (1r calise to he paid 10 MQrtgagee Ihe principal and all intere,t payable in respect of
the 1,(Jan rind an!, other sums secured by this MOr1gage, al [he time and in the manner stipulated
:.'.-.tbc Note or lhi:-; 1\1nr1g.<Ige, all \,;ithout any deduction or credit for taxes or other similar
'!ge~ p,lid by \1Dr1gagnr. and. (b) shall punctually perforn1, keep and obsen;e all and ::;ingular
L' covenants and promises in the NOll', and in any renewals, extensions or modjllc<1tiolls thereof.
and in this rdor1gagc, c:\rrcs~ly to be pcrrnrmcu. kept and Ob!ierved by find on the part of
~
= -
~ ~
~=
==
~~
-=
= _.
~ ~ "->
~ ~ Ln
.-;;; w:::..
:3 a ex:>
....... f',.J
;:::::: Ln
> ~
=;;::0
~ : :;:0
~ -
= ~
..;I~ (.,..J
?'" ~ {"...J
=0'0
=~~
o
~ ~
-~ ~
~
~-
~-
- ~
;::~
=
=
=
::;:
-
~
\VITNE:SS the due e:<cctJlioll her~()r(\S o!'lhe dJ1C first above written,
Signed. se~llcd and dcli\'~rcd
ill the presence nr'
PURCHASER
.;.. { ! '
/1 ~C(L,t,.~.> 'i\ '"
.------....----- -. ..-_._~-.--,- ---_.~._-
COLLIER DA VIS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company
!___: ..{ . 'It ('_. .,(f L I.. r, C r~
----------. .,--------.--- .-------
Print or T~'pe Name
<(01'"-
co c; l? ..
o ("J""":\ \" \
;;:~).j >_.\:\~~=~~" _'.,J<_'~.~__
c~ 'T I
rV :....('J
=: -gs :v~.\ ~ \\.)~,."'- p" \J'i l 1--\
~ E ~ - ," , -
c ~j 0_ Print or Tvpe Name
'0:])' cD ~
~~.,c::J
By
GOLDMEIER (N.J.) LTD,
a Florida limiled partnershIp, ii'
Managing Member
By
GOLDMEIER (NJ) CORP, a
Floridacorporation, its General
Partner
By' ~~..
Jl.IlIrne: Barry Goldmeier
Title Vice President
STATE OF FLORroA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE
.J81!"
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, the undersigned, this __ day of
July, 20m, by Barry Goldmeicr as Vice President ofGoldmeier (NJ) Corp, the general partner of
Goldmcier (N.J.) Ltd, the Maoaging Member of Collier Dav;s, lLC, a Florida limited liabi'lity
company.
[ 19fAR JALe&EI\~tRR[RO
~(W' -.2?--\MrCO"'.rTlE1P 101''l1O5
(tk' ~ .' No 00 D58480
~Ij:.f'.! 1J--~~~ IlottIoI'I'IO.
,XiJJ'~ -1"1.';"__
"--.._...~--_._._-_.__._~-_._.-
~~OTARY PUBLIC
Personally Known
l.....
Produced Identification
OR.
Type of ldentilication Produced
If J 111~ .\.,,', II'.' <<.J I. r: 1".1' I' '."
.;j;:;~~!;~
:'rl.;t.;;r.1{~'
G
=
=
G..>
G..>
'-0
>->
""
=
"->
.~
co
u-.
~ _ 'w _ 1 '!.
'{~ . . I ,
c, Q I
. .
vI - I'
EXHIBIT "A"
Description of Property
The NE I/.j of the S E 1/4 oCthe NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26
East:
and'"
The East ':, of the NE 1/4 oCthe NE 1/4 oflhe NW 1/4 of Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, less and excepting therefrom the North 75 feet thereof
All of the above property is located in Colli,,, County, Florida
Folio Nos. 00405560006 and 00404560007
=
=
<--->
<--->
'-0
>-"
""
G:I
~
>-"
00
=-
EXHIBIT "ll"
Purchase Money MOr1gage in favor of MALlNMORE CORPORA nON in the amount of
<c:,,~
co 8{~5,69741
.-j ('J 4-
7" .0
"-7rt)
~.:..,- ~
2 Q3('J
- -D tV
.:'j l:~~!:l:hase Money Mortgage in favor of DA VID HOWARD GOLDBERG AS CURATOR OF THE
,. (v Q
Qi ji;ST A TE OF RONALD LETT, DECEASED and MALINMORE CORPORA nON in the amount of
UJr.;:
',$408,857 ) 6.
and
.'i~@:li~
.ih!1i.\!'f..j!t
:;;~~dfi,~}
""Jii\\f
..,t;,':-.\Zi
""d.
.,: y!l~
'*
><-
><-
=
~
~
~
'-0
>--"
.""
4l
"-"
>->
co
-->
'*
><-
><-
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS
FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST
j'~~~~~l~li~-;nl~/iri ::~ti'Kj'f;';;~:1~~i[!~~,~~~t~fI:;-::i-};tf.m~';;fl~\;{l:H;-itmt~tf;TIi,);~~BP:t.~,c:~.~tJi~'.~:F:~;~iWM.~m~t~,~t~~ti'it~~1{t]{i~'W?fi.~:i~;it;!#.;:;~'f[:;:i~~;~!:fjijiHtfj'~~H?t1~1lf'~1.m~rmjr;.fDl1
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) COLLIER DAVIS, LLC
ADDRESS 250 CATALONIA AVENUE. SUITE #606 CITY CORAL GABLES STATE FL ZIP 33134
TELEPHONE # 305/350-9898 CELL # FAX # 305/358-5381
E-MAIL ADDRESS:BG01dmeier(aJ.aol.com
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE):
Section/Township/Range
8
/ 50S
/ 26E
Lot:
Plat Book
Block:
Page #:
Subdivision:
Property 1.0.#: 00403880005. 00404520005, 00404560007,
00406560005,00405560006
Metes & Bounds Description: Please see attached Legal Description
'::i:~[i:}I:j~'~f;Jt;:~j:f~1I~~J~i;~j:1f~m';11jif,,~;j~~~Ht[1~~Jt;f:Qit~US~Wl.\:~~j,:~,~~;pq's-~:~~l(1~:t6~)-~it~-~~~:j~tt~:~~n-r~f~-~lnR!::'f:1;t;~:t~~~'~~ttj:~t~c~~r~i
(Check applicable system):
COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM
a . CITY UTILITY SYSTEM
b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM
PROVIDE NAME
d. PACKAGETREATMENT PLANT
(GPO capacity)
e. SEPTIC SYSTEM
ISJ
o
o
o
o
a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM
b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM
c _ FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM
PROVIDE NAME
d_ PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL)
[gJ
o
o
o
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 6Jl4/04
I:\DATA\2002\02204\PUD Submittal Docs After September 2005\02204StatementofUtilityProvisions20050928.doc
<Of'-
cO..-o
o"":t
"C'-J,......
~:; 0
"'-''"1: _
E-"-LO
1) '-('"I
~, Q)
-.0 Q)
~ E OJ
drum
~ url
0:' (j)
,-eel
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS - page 2
*~l)~tiir;q:ijij~~j'ig!!jJ:j';g\~~r~~&",g~: 286 Residenfia1 Units and 38.500 s.f. ofCornmercial /
Office I Restaurant
ij~t.;!<3'At;lg>~M~B~,~t~Q~!~t~QgMAijR:S:;
A.
B.
WATER-PEAK 282.660 GPD
SEWER-PEAK 312.085 GPD
AVERAGE DAILY 80.760 GPD
AVERAGE DAILY 80.760 GPD
IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM,
PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED September 2007
"c .O';;'"'::"""'~'"<-~'''':''''''''''''",~..' __,---." "."",,~ ".T""""'.".W"",,,", .-'-:":
~!l!!liBi~t!~~'1~I~]]i!.M~,!joI[1. 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.
On site sewage shall be gravity feed to an on site with lift station and connected to
Collier County's sewer system.
coi:IiERiii;iOUNTy;JiutiUi':fiWiioEDi'6AfI'JONiSTA7fEMsiSii1 If the oroiect is located within the
'v."' ,~'" ","""'" '''~;'; ','0 .... ;>". .,.,.:" ,.,..,.j,"" "," , .-<'. '''."",' ,.~, ',,-.' ....,...."'.~.~,,,. ..__.".,....''"'' .~,..,..".> >"".' ","" ,=,.,._.. ~'" "'.....""."<.._.... "
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 an agreement to dedicate the
appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems.
~]j~IDgf,~'(g~ij".;.95~:~M~!~~~jk!!X':g~g~qJ,!~if~Ri;?M/@[i!~[,i,R.QM1Q~~~I1JUnless 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.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 6/14/04
I:\DATA\2002\02204\PUD Submittal Docs After September 2005\02204StatementofUtilityProvisions20050928.doc
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHlP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, LESS THE WEST 50 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4, AND LESS THE
NORTH 75 FEET OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4.
AND
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHlP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 75 FEET
THEREOF.
AND
THE NW1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHlP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 75 FEET
THEREOF.
AND
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 75 FEET
THEREOF AND THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
ALL THE ABOVE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CONTAINING 22.83 ACRES OF LAND MORE OF LESS,
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRlCTIONS AND RESERV ATIONS OF RECORD.
Anolication For Public n-J]e:rorimr For rUD Rezone 6/14/04
J. IDA T A\2002\02204\F;naIPUDSubmittalDocU1m:nts\02204PUDR.zoneP~li\ion20041 I 12.doc
W::;'...
~'I't ',~'
WASl"\E MANAGEM!i
-1500 E,'\.change Avenue
Nilpk." FL .HI04
(941) 649-221~
(941) 649.5644 Fax
April 13, 2004
Michael Stephenson
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc,
3 106 South Horeshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Dear Sir:
This letter is to follow-up from your letter dated January 15,2004, regarding Solid Waste
Service, Waste Management is under contract with Collier County to provide Solid
Waste Services for the residenfs and businesses that either lives in or work within Collier
County,
The property listed is S,E, comer Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road I believe meets
the requirements, by contract with the County we would provide Solid Waste Services,
Sincerely,
A~&~
Larry Berg 0
District Manger
<(01"-
co~o
.o--;:t
o(".J~
Z .0
~.q
E"'"lO
ClJ~N
_ClJ
-.oClJ
ro E OJ
U 1]) (\j
fGOCL
0)<1)
,..:(0
:I "~..
""'"'t(.~""<,,.
llti~,~,,'Vl,\ll
~;)~ :..~.: :*:
~~~{6~p~<~q,
~~ii~,,(,
Office of the Administrative Asst
East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District
4798 Davis Blvd, Naples, FI34104
Phone: (239) 774-7111 Fax: (239) 774-1782
..... "....
" ,or jJ:'~""<",
.../..~\...q'")f\/'l
~i.)';.~:'*.
-t;,'.q,;;'V",
;p .<.$::......... .s
~ lle"(,
February 12, 2004
Costal Engineering Consultants, Inc.
3106 S. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Att: Michael Stephenson
RE: Collier-Davis, LLC Project
S.E. comer Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road
Section 8, Township 50S, Range 26E
CEC File No. 02,204
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
In reference to your letter addressed to the Golden Gate Fire Prevention
Bureau, please be advised this parcel is in the East Naples Fire Control
and Rescue District,
East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District will provide service to the
above mentioned property.
Sincerely
EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT
,:..----;/"" C (~'.,
(/I/''[;i'''.' /1/. ..,,- ~C;4'-<~/'
/ I - l' / /~ r
Mary M. Friday
AlA
.
F=PL
4105 15TH Ave, SW
N.ples, Fl. 34116
FAX: 1-239-353-6082
January 24, 2004
Coastal Engineering Consultants Inc.
3106 S, Horse Shoe Dr.
Naples, FL, 34104
Attn: Me Michael Stephenson
Re: Collier - Davis, LLC, Project - S.E. corner Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road
To Whom It May.Concern:
This is to confirm that, at the present time, FPL has sufficient capacity to provide electric service to the above
captioned property, Electric service will be supplied by FPL to the customer, based on terms and conditions
outlined in the General Rules and Regulations for Electric Service as approved by the Florida Public Service
Cornmission,
FPL will require easements for your project, usually a ten-foot perimeter easement that will have to connect to
internal easements. Please review your plans for the proposed preserve areas, so you may address any
mitigation concerns before permitting,
Please provide the final site plan, site survey and electrical load data as soon as possible so the
necessary engineering can begin,
Early contact with FPL is essential so that resources may be scheduled to facilitate availability of service
when required,
Sins~rely, i t
A.,i"1 1//
,',':.: />1~
.'. (....) '/.. ip:, /' --~-
///... '../ F ~/v//')
i/ ..
JW, White
Construction Services
an FPL Group Company
__A
...
<.{or--
OO~O
.07
nNy-
Z .0
-'"
~~ <D
_ CD
ill >-c"
_~ UJ
-.0 UJ
"'EDJ
DmtU
6juCL
OJQ)
<to
Stnrint
I:'
PO SO" 24G9
Naplp.s, Florida 34106-211.69
January 22, 2004
Michael Stephenson
Coastal Engineering Consuitants, Inc,
3106 S. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE; Availability of Service rCollier-Davis, LLC, Project
Sec 8, Twp 50S, Rng 26E - Collier, County
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
In response to your letter dated January 15, 2004, Sprint-Florida, Inc. will provide telephone service, upon request,
to the Collier-Davis, LLC. Project, located at the Southeast corner of County Barn Road and Davis Blvd, in Naples,
Florida, .
Telephone service will be provided based on the rules and regulations covered in our Local and General
Exchange Tariff, approved and on file with the Florida Public Service Commission,
In order for us to meet your service expectations and provide lor the timely installation of access facilities, we need
your cooperation on the following items:
1, Sufficient utility easements, as agreed to by Sprint-Florida, Inc" for construction of communication facilities
must be recorded either through incorporation with the recorded plat of the Collier-Davis, LLC. Project
development, or in a manner as may be recorded in the Public Records of Coitier County, Florida. A minimum
10' wide utility easement along the cable route to be provided by developer "nd a 40' X 40' easement may be
required for switching equipment
2. Provide a full set of construction plans and diskette (DGN format or AUTOCAD) furnished to us at the same
time as plans are sent to Florida Power & Light Company,
3, All utility easements, rights-of-way, roadways, etc., over which communications construction is necessary
must be within six inches of linal grade, ciear of debris and lot lines properly staked and identified prior to
communication facility construction, NOTE: Staking to include grade elevation,
4, Clearing, grading and staking is \0 be maintained by the developer during Sprint's construction activity.
5, Deviations to our standard construction procedures lrom the above, resulting in additional expense to Sprint-
Florida, Inc., either during or after communication facility construction, will be appropriately billed to and borne
by the developer,
6. Road crossings provided and placed by developer allocations indicated by a Sprint-Florida, Inc.'s
. representative. Sprint-Florida, Inc, will provide markers.
7, Sprint-Florida, inc, shall not be responsible for seeding/mulching disturbed areas of the utility easements.
8. Nolify Sprint engineering a minimum of 90 days in advance when telephone service will be required within
this area,
January 22, 2004
Page 2
RE: Collier-Davis, LLC. Project
The following criteria rnust also be met for any multi-family or commercial building:
1. A 4' X 8' X %" plywood terminal board must be securely attached for mounting of teiephone hardware,
2, Entrance conduit to be run lrom the property corner or utility easement into the mechanical room with no more
than one 90-degree sweeps. Size and location to be determined by a Sprint-Florida, Inc,'s representative.
3. Access to the power ground (MGN) within five feet of our terminal or placement of a No.6 Insulated copper
ground wire.
4, A single run conduit (3/4 inch suggested) or access route from each unit 10 the location of the telephone
termination point.
5, Conduit and equipment room to be completed 30 days prior to Certificate 01 Occupancy date,
These requirements are necessary due to the trelTlendous growth iNili iiI] uLJI servin!d area anu SprinilFiorida's use
of advance technology, Failure to comply with the above mentioned could result in service delays to this
development.
Please sign and date the acknowledgments provided below and return it in the self addressed stamped envelope
included, If you should require additional information. please contact me at (239) 263-6293.
Sincerely,
/ /" d./
?~-('~y,s
Luis C. Negron
~~&t'ljviJrk Engineer I - E&C
LCN:ns
c: Chron File
I hereby acknowledge receipt 01 this letter and agree with Ihe provisions contained herein,
Dafe
Title
<(01-
CO~O
0,,"
n0J'-<-
Z .0
""
E~ {g
Q) '-("'J
~(])
-.D (])
"'EO)
-g CD om
CD u -
o,Q)
<(0
@omcast
2931 Michigan Ave.
Fort Myers, FL 33916
Phone: 239-732-3805
FAX: 239-334-8575
January 26, 2004
eoastal Engineering
C/O Michael Stephenson
3106 Horseshoe Dr. So,
Naples FI. 34104
Re: S,E. Corner Davis Blvd, And County Barn Rd.
Utility Easement Approval and Letter of Availability
Dear Michael Stephenson,
Corncast can provide its services to the above referenced property upon the
execution of Cable Television Installation and Service Agreement You will need
to contact Barbara Stockner at (239) 732-3842 or LaTrese Jackson at (239)
732-3841,
Com cast has reviewed the proposed plat for the above referenced property
and found the easements provided to be adequate for the placement of our
broadband facilities.
If you have any further concerns, please contact me at (239) 732-3805.
Sincerely,
/Zi1 r:L
Mark Cook,
Design Coordinator
Copy: Barbara Stockner
LaTrese Jackson
COLDER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
330 I E. Tanuami Trail . Nap!es, Florida 34112 . (239) 732-2575 . FAX (239) 732-2526
February 5, 2004
Michael Sfephenson
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc,
3106 S, Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Subject:
Collier-Davis, LLC Project
Water and Wastewater Availability
Dear Mr. Sfephenson:
Potable water service for domesfic and irrigation purposes and sanitary sewer service are
available for tbe above referenced project via existing lines along Davis Boulevard.
Potable water service for domestic and irrigation purposes and sanit31)' sewer service are
also available for fhe above referenced projecf via existing lines along Counfy Barn Road,
A masfer meter shal1 be required for such facilities as rental apartments, shopping centers,
strip malls, high rise condominiums, recreational vehicle parks, mobile home parks or any
other multi-family projects that cannot or do not provide the required CUEs paralleling a
typical single family streef cross-section or any other project that does not comply with or
meet the intention of Ordinance 2001-57, as amended or superceded.
If this project is not to provide the required Collier County Utility Easements (CUEs), all
water and sewer facilities shall be owned and maintained by the owner, his successors or
assigns. If this project is to provide fhe required CUEs, all water and sewer facilifies shall
be owned and mainfained by Collier Counfy Public Utilities.
Tie-in to water and 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 in !low.
The District will be making phased expansions to the water supply, treatment and
tr31lSlmssion facilities and 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 fo
supply fhe referenced propel1y's anticipated potable water and sewage freatment and
disposal demands and the remainder of the District's conmntted capacity. However, no
gU31nHltee can he issued that other developments throughout the .District will
G:IE'lgiJlecrill~ Tt:e!lI1\vaililbility/Av,s;(,iliIY L"tl"e
~
I -rl'-"'~"
--
c-:.
o
H
t
y
-
<f0f'-
00.,.-0
.0,,"
ON"':"
Z - 0
""0
E""--w
ill ....('-J
_UJ
-..0 UJ
~E~
Cruo.:.
UJ"
U,(j)
<('0
Michael Stephenson
February 5, 2004
Page 2
not have an impact on the quantity of potable water and sewage treatment and
disposal capacity available to this property until each phase has received a
commitment for service.
Connections are also subject to the availability of water and sewer capaeity at the time
formal applioation is received, Should water supply or sewage treatment and disposal
capacity not be available, the Developer would be required fo provide an interim means of
wafer supply and treatment and sewage treatmenf and disposal until the District's facilities
have fhe adequafe capacity to serve the project.
Please note that any and all improvements that you consfruct musf 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) 732-2575,
Sincerely,
Jo~:drf(r)Qh~
Engineering Technician
cc: Diane Deoss, Utilify Billing & Customer Service
Heather Sweet, Utility Billing & Customer Service
G:!EngUleennfl Tech/Availabilily/Availabilily LeU"!"
(i)
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES
~ PUD Rezone
\ 0\1,
./
o PUD to I'UD Rezone PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
PROJECT #2004010019
DA TE: 11123/04
{'O\~" I MICHAEL BOSI
\- 1-0'1
Time: :;1',15
(;!)lh,..... - 't>-.v',<;
Firm:
Date:
Project Name:
Applicant Name: V; "0 ,
Cr-o..J ~f"'r'\
Phone: t.~\, -,),31.~1
.
Owner Name:
Co \\ ",- \bo.) LLC.
Owner Address:
Phone:
Meeting Attendees: Planner:
L ;~.. ~pA.\...\'l"~
I<'~_a\" '')~'''''''''M''
('\It:..ACi. :=)t............il-l
Submittal Requirements (refer to application for additional requirements)
\'1\: {-.< 'I)';)si
JH/'J/!j/l/ i 1:i1t'1:/(6%:fi'
6 \<LVt V\. He...___+l--
24 Copies of the following:
Q1 Completed Application
!ll Pre-application Meeting Notes
I2J Conceptual Site Plan 24X 36" and One 8 y, X II" copy
5ZI PUD document and Master Plan
2 Copies of the following:
!2J Deeds/Legals & Survey (if boundary of original .pun j~ ~lI1ended)
5i:l
I!Zl
5(1
4C
~
f
B'
o Seven (7) Tramc Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver'" nuJ.. '"
/\ V r I'. \ ~ '\!5 \','I-<-\~ r<<j""J.'
rOo f, . \..'- A\D... t rre. l P"
v.1"'1,~"""" l...n
'~ Five (5) copies of Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat arcas deuned) min scaled I" ~ 400'
bOne (1) Ekctronic verston ofPUD document in \Vord format
IX<'~
Fees:
Application Fcc: ~ $10,000 I- $25 per acre (plus Property Owner Notificalioll fees)
0$8,000 amendment
$150.00 Fire Code Review
, 50.00 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review
$500.00 Pre-application fee (to be credited toward application fee if submitted within 9 months of pre-application meeting,
$681.00 Estimated Legal AdvertisUlg Fee (to be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily News),
$1600.00 Environmental Impact Statement review fee
* Propclty Owner Notifications $1.0() NOll-certified; $3.00 Certified returll receipt mail
( to be paid after receipt of invoice from Dept. of Zoning & Development Review
Fee Total $
-----~.~-_..-.-
Meeting Notes
!Vq>p,t \n Cn,,\o,L~ A\cm FL \ JQP"A! t ('x>.,U.,,;~ -h-"~"I'"r\el.-\.", ;SSLK\
- ;; ~. +I?!; 0~fef.4-it'c4/ Y2;"..: Mt#/1cw 6--rjlvl/<!(;-41'(..::;t/;L I'tr)!JW#1 h
;JoCiI:: r (, - /. I. rJ r: Nil b/Jt 1'- ([,4'/ F.
/11 fA/I/11f/.41 dVl1fkf(''IY.4{ /l1;9(/j/1!.~$(?A/lf ,co/1 1';J~":J~~~f/t~ (I'[;
l}itr'iJ/O# ,7..') of- tlJC
EM /-If/l1f!/#6 ;2;;91/~!..V,
" loJJ//ftl.-' f!C/1/ /SS0~::r
- /IIf/?/1 wf;fC.4/V~ YWi'iS/)/Cft0f/4( (..I,{.-/>- hEClJ f/l'lt/hl.f.l ff'7 SFw/f'fil,
<(01---
roc;wo LPC 1=0", ;A/P s,^-bcUs +-V'Lc:f- f an Yo OSed. L.,''''';+e.-
co
Z '()r {
E;!""o ~o..c:ve or <? c.o...."""".c:~ ow.e. 0 v ~e,.f- l{U"",.,-r-s.
m~N C
~~'!f~,f C<cfe + 'lJI,l'\,-+>. r-or "',,<;....1-...,,+;.../ oI"-....s;7' ba.",L
c CDO
CD 0 -
OlC!J
..(0 ~
"Ju~ l)1.J"~.l.;....... ~.-tl....... \~I,..11 n'jtJ.rr-.......t"'+. 0\
('6_"""t...r<c.\
+~ r(.)~dl'.....Ir--..4.~
"^"\-\'~ "\r'-l{)'r~.\-,o_ (...,.._'._... r J '
-- II. ~u v...'~... _- _"~',<~":::; ..";,, w<\K~ o-c\, 0"",0( expc".,,,,,1oy\._.
/ J91/ A4'JA'
wvuu
-y~ '\2-eJ\~ L (,) c rzv8 ~oJ'- ~~~~
~ -?-?~XL ~~Uc~t'"$" ~ \?'lA.O ~1:\,o.J'> If'iX2-. E2-~-W
G:\Current\Pre-App forms\PUD pre-app.doc
Revised October 15, 2003
TUR/DEC/02/2003 12:0\ PM COASTAL ENGINEERiNG
FAX No, 239 643 4364
P. 002
ADDRESSING C1IlZCKLlST
Pl_e complete the li>llowing and submit to the Addressing Section fur Review. Not s1l ItetIlA will apolv to
evl!l!'l uroiecl Itemll in bold tvne are reauired.
1. Legal dll9crlptiOll. of S\lbject property Of properties (copy Df lengthy dt;$DTiplio" may b. attached)
Please .eellWu;hed fOrlell8l descd~ Pn..-<u Is 34-1 q,'i<. LJ,.q . 7'2, It '11, -g- ~- <=..c,
2. Folio ~perty ID) number(s) of above (ati4ch 10. or associate with. legal tisscriptiO/llfmore t1um one)
00403880005,0040452noo~,~040656000S.00404560007,OO40556006
3. Sfrecl address or addresses (as applicable, if already assigned)
4.. Location mllJl, showing c;;.act location of project/site in :rclati01l, to nOllreSt public wad right-ot-way (a=h)
5. Copy of survey (NEEDED ONLY FOR UNPLATI1ID PROPERTIES)
6_ Proposed project name (if applictlhle)
Not nP.t""mnM at ~c
7. P.r:oposoo StreetnamC8 (lfappllcable)
Not det<lmlined at this time
8. Site Development Plan Number (FOR EXISTING PROJECTS/SITES ONLY)
SDP_
9, . Petitiwo Type - (Complete a sepll1'llte Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type) ,
DSDP (Site, Development Plan)
DSDP A (SDP Amendment)
o SDPJ (3DP lnsubstaI\tisl Change)
o SIP (Site 1mprovemmt Plan)
o SIP A (SIP Amendmell1) .
8 sm (Street Name CbJmge)
Vegetation/EXotic (Veg. Removal P~)
I8l Land Use Petition (Varillllce, Conditional Use,
:Boat Dock Ext., Rezone, PUP rezone, etc.)
o Othor. Describe:
10. Project 0, developmcm nllll1eS proposed for, or already appearing in, oondomini= do=ents (if
applicable; indioate whet:hor proposed Of existing) None lit this time
11. Please Checl: One: 0 Checlilist is to be Faxed Back 0 Personally Picked Up .
12. ApplicantNlIJl),eVUl.cet\tA Co.utero Phone 239-543-2324 ext. 120 Fax 239-643-1143
13, Sigtl81ute on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Sfreot Name-approval and is mbjec1: to
furthor review by 1h.. Addressing Scoti= .
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Ptimlll)' Number Cf3 n
AddregQ Num.bc:r <t '3 ~ C:
Address Number n~3.....
Addr"".Numbcr 0,3'63
q~5'i:
o
o
o
8
B
PPL (Plans & Plat Review) .
pSP (Preliminary Subdivision rlat)
FP(EjnlJ1 Plat)
LU (Lot Line AlljustmCllt)
BL (Blasting Permit)
ROW (Ri,ght.of.Way Permit)
EXP (Excavation Permit)
VR.SFP (Vcg. Removal &:. Site Fill Pemrit)
Approved by JOAl"~ /1'Z-o;<a..-n
Date (2--()3 -03.
BosiMichael
......bject:
;ation:
Updated: Pre-app PUD Michael Basi/Planner Vince Cautero/Agenf
cds-c
Start:
End:
Show Time As:
Thu 1/8/20042:15 PM
Thu 1/8/20043:15 PM
Tentative
Recurrence:
(none)
Meeting Status:
Not yet responded
CDS-C; BosiMichael; AblerKenneth; chrzanowski_s; siemion_n; valera__c; HiIIWes;
lenberger_s; kant_e; EIUrfaliAlan; muller_r; bedtelyonJ; weeks_d; HeathGlenn
Required Attendees:
~ g~app PUD Vince Cautero, Agent - 643-2324, representing Collier - Davis, LLC, for rezone from "E" to "PUD" for a
ci re~ential and commerciai mix on property located on the SE corner of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road in Section
~ (t J;ownship 50 S., Range 26 E, This was originally scheduled for 1/6/04 at 3:00 to 4:00, agent rescheduled.
Q)'-('..J
-w
-.D Q)
~Ei?
c ruo
CD u -
,Jl CD
<co
1
(
f [tv l-l vt i2/0
ADDRESSING CfmCKLIST ~r-f 1
PleellO =ploto!he following t!lid mbmit In 1he AddJ:esffing Section for Review. Not ill iten1B wUIIlJlll\y to
/!!'1m ll!oiect IteJ;nll in bold tVDe are reauired-
TUE/DEC/02/2003 12:01 PM
ffiP'sTAL ENGlNEERING
FAX No, 239 643 4364
p, DOl.
1. Legal d011CriptlO1l of subjed: ptuperty or properties (copy of l<mgthy d...aription may bl! afiach2ti)
PI=,,,,,lrl:tachedforlega!descri~ Pn-<U /5 0,4-,4<'<,4"1 7'" t '1 Co '8- 6o-~G,
2. Polio (Pl'up.rty ID) number(s) of above (at14ch to, or associate with, legal tkscriptiOIl ifmorB than one)
00403880005, 004D452DO05,r1040656000S. 00404560007.0040556006
3, S1re& address err addresses (as applicable. if already assigned)
4, LoclUion map, showll:1g Cl;,llciioolltion of project/site in relation In nearest public wad right-or-way (attaCh)
5. CDpyofll1ll'V~ (NEEDED ONLY FOR UN"PLATI"'.Ll)PROPERTIES)
6. Proposro project nEl1J1e (if applicable)
Not de.tPTmined a! tbis time
7. Proposed street lJaOl" (if applicable)
Not det=ined at this time
8. Site Development Plan Nwnber (FOR EXISTING PROJECTS/SITES ONLY)
SDP_
9. . PoiitiOOl Type ~ (Complete a sep= Addr;:ssing Chdclist for escl1 Petition Type) ,
DSDP (Site, Developn=t Plan.)
n SDPA (3D? Amendment)
EJ SDPI (SDP Insubstmtial ChAnge)
o SIP (Site lmpro'tl1:\ment Plan)
o SJP A (SIP Amendment) .
8 SNR. (Street Name C!=ge)
VegelAtion/E'totic (Veg. R=ova1 P~)
IR1 Lsnd Use Petition (Varinnce, ConditionJl! Use,
Boa! Dock EX'L, R=e, PUP rezone, eUJ,)
o Olhor - Descdbe:
10. Project Dr developmw names propoeed for, Dr already appearing in, condomini1llll do=.ents (if
eppliCBhle; indicate wlwIher proposed or etisting) None at this time . .
o
o
u
8
o
B
PPL (I'1anB & Plat R.eview) ,
PSI' (P:reliminaJ:y Subdivision Plat)
FP(Final Plat)
LLA (Lot Line Aqjustmcnt)
BL (Blasting P=it)
ROW (Ri,ght-of-W"y Permit)
EX!' (EJ:cavation Permit)
VRSFP (Veg. Romoval & Site Fill P=it)
1 L Please Check One: ~ Chocl::list i~ to be Fl!1:oo Beck 0 Personally Picl:ed Up ,
12. ~ppllcantName VlticcntA Caut= Phone 239-643-2324 en 120 FlIX_239-643-1143
13, Srguature on, Addressing Cbecl:!ist does not constiinta Project merr Strcot Name:: approval hIld is robject to
further review by the Addrel!!oing SeotiDIL
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
PrimlllY Number '13 n
AddresR NUItl,bc:r '1 '30:<, ?:
Address Number '13'33
Addr""" Nu:mbe:r 0,3'>\ '>
.CJ35'6
Approved by ~
llZ6!.o..m
Date 1~-(J3 -D3.
RE-SUBMlTTAL
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
PROJECT #2004010019
DATE: lI/9/0S
MIKE BOSI
~
-
<..l
E
C/)
'6
.Q
:J
(f)
"0
o
o
..c: 0.. UJ
Ci(1l\O
.Q"<:N
..c:"",Ql
0>- OJ>'
~ 'Ql- 19 0::: C
. ._ -. ::s
Ql Z .Q (f) C'
3Ql~gl
(J)W-, . .
u:: :J (f) c iii
'0:;';=
alOf-O
,~ :J co 0
z...J<..l
LLQl
~ (f)
Ql
C/)
Ql
0:::
C/)
">
(1l
o
~
'0
C-
o -
E 0
,g
~ II
o .
" -
u: UJ
~ ~ ;J.
0-0
U. <fJ
}>
0'0
5: ",,\]") Cb
~ ~ D ~
..9- go QJ
CI) C\i CD-
o ~..., CD
t- .r:n.......:3
g ~. 0&=
C'\l f-,f:::..::J'
~ ~ ~~
'" 0
Ul '"
'" a.
---~.~
i
i '
I~(.~'~"""".'.'
i"c'.~;
(cc ~~~"
i
~--~'l -~
t't..-
~I1C' ,
-I
'?:
/
":
,
"'-
~.::r:;::~.~
'~"
" ..:":.
~. ,,'"
~'.
,
.
.
. .
.(
I ( \
"
, ..:~. >
""'1
.' ".ci ~
.......' "_"'0-:-,"",- ':>".~~,e';l'
" . ~'-
i '~,,:,..
"'1........
I
,
. "i"I; l r)!i;~
~:J .J1, ~""," <""
9~i:;;i~~~;a~~~!~~' ~ - '
.".lS;;>,"~ ~."
~~~tr:i ': ..
~r:"~,,~ .,,' ,QoI<......,/
4~~~~ :=
l.,r,. ~ , ~~) .
.;,..
, ,
r
"!j 't-
,
,
':
"\t~"~,
~t,~.".;j
,,~;... ~
-~'~'J' '...,
'~'?>:~: ._,-~!K
,
.:j%~f~~~fJ
y...."
,
'-"-,~",
'il!.'.h
1
5""--
'\
,
, E
- . r=: g
=III~~, Ii
<:;:. 0 'Ilt'"
~i~~~~
~ ....-c~!
-,",€<f;t::lli
..':I.c~"
... to..; ~
. ~.~~I-. ill
'\'
ts
'I::
-
rn
:a
.c
::s
C/)
'"C
o
o
.r::
'-
o
.c
.r::
OJ
'w
Z
I]) ill
rn 0. (0
::lCtfN
-0:21])>-
Q) +-" -,+,
,~Ctf C
..... :2 :t: :J
I]) .c~. 0
'-u CtfoO
6, Ctf :r: LO '-
,- :a --C/) c: I])
U. u.. ;: =
c:OI:::O
,-0 u
Ctf::lClO
m..Jc.J
>,u. I])
C C/)
::s
o
U
'"C
c:
Ctf
'E
Ctf
>
I])
'S
o
m
rn
'S:
Ctf
o
~
.,
-m 0, ~
"0 N
C. ~ 0
~ '"
N b N
0 0 0 0
0 '" 0
'" " '" z
-.; ~ G
"~
m it
Iii ~ Iii Ul
Iii ..J ,
!;: << "' 0
" ..J '-' Ul '"
0 u: '" << a.
~- .!t
, i~ ~ h
~ .1 ''':'''-
I,j c.
f .J
" ~ ~ y
~ il 11 ~ "J
00 Q) ~ v ~~ c::..
c;
9 > ca.. ".: ~~ ~
OJ 0 ~ !2:!
c OJ ~
:;:: ~ N (r \I)
Q) ~
Q) 1'4 <!. <:
0 :2: rn {5 '4 12,
VI 0 .... I ::! '-
~ w @)
('{j 0 a:: ) ~ ':/" i' ",
Q) c E " 4 \.
,
I ~ c Q) ~ ~ '~
<U
0 <( Q) ~ ''-'.,;
~ ..J ~ ~
;;: Q) tv\
D ~
~ >- d"-
o 0
W -" l'...
Ii'- [\ ~ -J 'l) ;1\}
.... \)0 ....... <:r- !r')
. ""
l:) lX: '" ~ K') N\ ':.../,
Z w <:'J N ).. ~ a ."j
m 0- \ ,
"" :E 0l '" '"<l I\l \l' 1'\- I'( , \
.... ~ . '" \ ~ C;
0l -:1- , ~ .',,-,
w Z '0 C'- ~ [" \. (,
1M w 0l r- \
z r!Zi <::> l'I\ ;j---
:i 0-
0 <:'J ~ ""\
J:: ~
Z 0..
0
"" I-
po W ~
~ w
~ :J: ~
~ en "
z (]) 0 '7"'s
0 " \4
- ill l~ "
Lb Z C') 8 -2.
0.. ""Il /\
Z III ---' ::to -~
OJ "- ~
- C
.... en c ~ v ~
"" Q) ~ 1:(
Q (]) 0. Y)",<: oJ
0 (]) 0 '<:'
:2: z
0 I..'-{. 'to "- ~-
ci n
::E: . V> ~ ~ " "
VI Q) ~ "
~ VI 0 " ~ -\:
0 w .r: ~ " ~ ~\.
a:: ~ ~ '-Z
00 c Q) V\~
C ~ "
:E: <( 0 .... <l ,,~
I ~ l'" ~ i: 0 <).. ~
~ I- ~'" a n 00 ~
(/\ w z ~
"'" ~ w rf'. ~ ~
W lX: 0 ,-,"lJ .........
~ I- 0 ~ '- 0-
Z (/) co '-t
0J
f) ':i
"
\{) .~ ,~
:2 ~
</) ~ \j
>- ~ 't
~
c 't \(\
Q) :J
E 0 ~ ~ "l '\ 0)>
<U U ' . ()~ ro<g
Z ~ l~ .) "lJO::J
~ E } , ",roo.
0 Q) ~ ",3",
Q) ~ rov_
B ill '\ r0~ CD
~ ~ -,. m~3
0.. Q) ! "(\ 00-",
w 0 ~ ~ 0-' Z
:;; :J ~\- -NO
4; >- ',- <:r -"'0"
0 '::> ", o~oo
Z '" ~ ., --.10)>
<(0 r.......
ryJC;~
QC'-l,+-
Z ,0
-"m
S="CD
.... '-('J
2m
-.!:") Q)
ro ,-- en
v63m
CuD-
m m
<?o
l:J
Z
i=
LU
W
Z
Z l-
Ow
- W
1- J:
~cn
0:: Z
0-
u.. Z
Z Cl
aU)
o
o
J:
0::
o
rn
J:
2
w
z
Cl
C
'"
III
III
:!;;
....
o
III
-
"'
CJ
III
u
~
a.
Cl
c
'"
III
III
:!;;
O,l
E
"'
z
-
U
III
'0'
~
Il.
~
L~
[\;J
.j
o
?~
rj
P
(w
)
V1 3
/"
~ j
?
:5 J
0
C)
~ J
~
..... if)
('j,
t<J
~
~.~
~
1
\J1 ")
S( S
..J'
ei
-18
N
Q
<D
~
23
~
"
o
"0
1;;
"
.c
on
,S
c:
'"
'v;
0;
,S
a;
"
:"'i
~
,9
1ii
E
.,g
~
"0
o
o
.c
o
-"
.c
'"
'Qj
~
on
E
o
~
u..
~
z
~
w
~
Z t-
Ow
.-::= w
( :I:
~rn
a:: Z
0-
u..Z
Z Cl
ocn
o
o
:r
0::
o
ro
:r.
~
ill
Z
'"
l:
:;:l
Q)
Q)
:!;
....
o
Q)
-
ca
o
z
...
O!:
"-
Q) W
~ l~
l:
:;:l
Q)
Q)
:!;
Q)
E
ca
z
-
u
Q)
'0'
..
a.
N
!;2
lD
~
(3
~
"
o
-q
Q;
'"
.<::
'"
,E::
c:
0>
'in
0>
,E::
Q;
'"
:2
c:
,Q
10
E
.E
E
"0
o
o
.<::
(;
.c
.<::
0>
'ijj
;;
'"
E
~
oP
ro'fil
-o()'"
",roo.
<DOl",
ro u_
N~ro
-J ~Ol
0...
ll... O. Z
-",,0
~O~
~o)>
GEGI Group Services
Civil Engineering
Planning Services
Survey & Mapping
Coastal Engineering
Real Estate Services
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
--
NAME Ms, Kay Dese!em, AlCP
TITLE Plincipal Planner
COMPANY Collier County Govenunent
Zoning and Land Development Review
Department
...-.
ADDRESS Community Development &
El1virOl1lnental Services Division
2800 N, Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
FAX # _.. Jl!eL#
--, - ._..~
Weare transmitting herewith:
US Mail
FROM Robert Andrea
DIVISION Planning
DATE June 27, 2008
CEC# 02,204
I
SUBJECT: Davis Reserve
. - -
QTY DATE REF, DESCRIPTION
I Naples Daily News Affidavit of Publication
I Naples Daily News Nl1Y1 Advertisement
1 Affidavit of Compliance
-
I Propeliy Owner Lettcr Example
I Propeliy Owner Mailing List
COMMENTS:
As requestcd, Thank you,
s '''''oj , f=;l4< (fo, Robert A""'oJ
'R" r:::c' c 1"/
" <." _~I,_. '\;
JUL. i) 1 -
C:
ZONING DEi'F,RTi'JiI::1IT
3106 S, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Phone (239) 643-2324 Fax (239) 643-1143. E-mail: infolalcecifi,com
SERVING FLORlDA SINCE 1977
1:\DATA12002\022041TransI02204 KDeselem NIMTransmlllaJ Letter 20080627.doc
,~
NAPLES DAILY NEWS
Published Dalh
Naples, FL 34102
Affidavit of Publication
State of Florida
County of Collier
<(at--
oo~a
,a,"
ON",-
Z .0
'"
E<;-~
ill "-("-I
_, IIJ
-.D IIJ
(1JECl)
~ a5~
(j) U
(J)CD
<(0
Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally
appealed Phil Lewis, who on oath says that they
serve as the Editor of the Naples Daily, a daily newspaper
published at Naples. ill Collier County, Florida; distributed
ill Collier and Lee counties of Florida; thaI the attached. copy
or tile adverlising. being a
!:]JBLlC NOTICE
in the maller of PUBLIC NOTICE
was published in said newspaper 1 time in the issue
on JUlle 2)", 2008
,,~
Af1i~nl fUlther say~ tllat the f;ujd Naples Daily News is a newspaper
publish~d at Naple~, in said Collier County. florida, and lhallhe said
nn\_5paper haf; heretofore heen continuously published in said Collier
County. F\()rida: distributed ill Collier and Lee counties of Florida,
<.:ad\ ua.\ alld has ll~ell Cllltrcu iL." !;CC\JIIJ da:-;~ Jllaillllatt~i <it the pust
ulliL:c in !...raple~. in said Collier Counly. florida, for a period of I
year ll~"t rreeeding Lhe first publication orthe attached copy of
advertisement; and atlion! fur1l1er ~aY5Ihn! he has neither paid nor
promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate,
commission or rehmd for the purpose of securing this advertisemenl for
pub 'cal n in the said ne\ paper.
( Sigmlture of affiant)
S\VOftl [0 and subscribed before me
This 211
]f Ine 200;, ~'--
(Signatmc of I tar)' public)
.4A'i'-~:'!~~, ROSEMARY TURNER
,.: '" CommiSSIOn DO 654713
";L. "jer,i Expires June 29, 2011
"1)',9l':1f,i"" ElornledThruTroyFai~~9lX).a8S.7011l
.--'
.''''''f'_''.-'
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 01-60, of the Collier County Land
Development Code, 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 at their current address as shown by the records of the Collier County Property
Appraiser of an applicatj.en request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, conditional use, variance,
~O~ /
co~o
o ~ ::': or parking exemption, at least ten days prior to the scheduled Pubic Information Meeting, The
z ._0
'ct'ct
E"- t-~.
~ jg (~ said notice contained the legal and or laymen's description of the site property of proposed
mE 01
DWm
~, i;j CL change and the time and place of a Public Information Meeting,
<( 0
Affidavit of Compliance,
Per attached letters and or property owner's list which are hereby made a part of this
/~L~
Signature
State of Florida
County of Collier
(:'\,'"2, 1<c1
TIle foregoing Agreement Sheet was acknowledged before me this --'\ < J
=:ju,\..Yc.. , 200~ by I?rJ)ccf+ 1/ 1;/1 Jctl'"'1:d
day of
who 1S
Eersonally known to me or who has produced
as
identification,
~ ~~
.0' ('L--( O-Z0 ,4 './.
(S' "atureofNot~blic)( . -
c/<~ 1'-7' A) 3. ---r; 'j !r:Jf....
(Print name of Notary Public)
NOTARY PUBLIC
......~~y}~;:~~ I{l1~d~ J. Tn.ylur
.;~"a.."':f,: C.mmlS!JOn # DD353485
%0.:,,~..~gExpim: OCT, 01, 2008
-""', ,""'..
;';'~orr..~~.."':- Bonded Tbro
.-__,"1111\1\\ AtJantic &.oding Co., Ine..
.- COASTAL
ENGINEERING
d~\f"~i~ CONSULTANTS
<" """-''''''ii)j~ INC
1,,;~'""'~""!~"'m~'O"
",~,~, '-~ ""'""
CEO Group Services
Civil Engineering
Planning Servir
Survey 8. Mapp.
Coastal Engineering
Real Estate Services
A CECI GROUP COMPANY
Website: WW'N.coastalengineering.com
June 16,2008
Berean Baptist Church, lnc,
1851 County Barn Road
Naples, FL 34112-2739
Dear Property Owner,
Please be advised that Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc, has made a formal application to
Collier County to rezone the following described property to Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD):
The property under review is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of County Barn
Road and Davis Boulevard, and consists of 22,83 +/- acres, The property is currently zoned for
Estates (E) residential use, The development will be known as Davis Reserve, currently owned
by Collier - Davis, LLC,
We intend to ask the County to approve a rezone to MPUD that would allow construction of up
to 35,000 square feet of commercial space and up to 286 residential dwelling units of which 20%
will be affordable/workforce housing on the subject property,
In order to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of our intention to construct a
Mixed Use Planned Unit Development and to give you an opportunity to influence the form of
development intended, we are holding a Neighborhood Information meeting on Mondav. June
30. 2008 at the Berean Baptist Church. Sanctuary at 5:30 pm. The Berean Baptist Church is
located at 1851 County Barn Road, Naples,
At this meeting we will make every effort to illustrate how we intend to develop the property,
Sincerely,
COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
8?~~ )~
Shaun Mularkey, AlCP
Senior Planner, Plannin ervices
(239) 643-2324 x147 or smu]arkev(wceciflcom, Fax (239) 643-4364
l:\DAL41?f)0210Utj4VYf!J\200~_!YIMJ_0210fNf}.,fJ~~~ Ow~~~.I' Le!!!!r:~~!!'lif!.gl~~._ ______ _ ____' ______ _.___~____ ____.__ ___~~,._ .._~_ _____
3106 S. Horseshoe Drive, "Joplss, Florida 34104"6137 . Phone (239) 643..2324 Fax (239) 643-1143 . E-Mail: info@cecifl.com
Easy Peel labels
Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@
BEREAN BAPTIST CHURCH INC
1851 COUNTY BARN RD
NA~S,FL 34112--2739
COLLIER DAVIS LLC
250 CATALONIA AVE STE 606
CORAL GABLES,FL 33134--6727
COUNTRYSIDE MASTER ASSOC INC
600 COUNTRYSIDE DR
NAPLES,FL 34104...6711
<(Of"-
CQ~o
.O-q-
o(~_
Z - 0
aLiNfE1AGLE GOLF & COUNTRY
j;lu"'J' C
. ()
1'5~ EN EAGLE BLVD S
ilAfii-i!/l,FL 34104---8776
~)C])
<to
SEACREST SCHOOL JNC
7100 DAVIS BLVD
NAPLES,FL 34104---5314
SEACREST SCHOOL INC
7100 DAVIS BLVD
NAPLES,FL 34104---5314
Etlouettes fadles a paler
~
I .It.
,
.Feed Paper
See Instruction Sheet! ~
for Easy Peel Feature.
-
~AVERV@5160@ 1
-
COLLIER DAVIS LLC
250 CATALONIA AVE STE 606
CORAL GABLES,FL 33134---6727
COLLIER DAVIS LLC
250 CATALONIA AVE srE 606
CORAL GABLES.FL 33134-6727
COLLIER DAVIS LLC
250 CATALONIA AVE STE 606
CORAL GABLES,FL 33134-."6727
COLLIER DAVIS LLC
250 CATALONIA AVE STE 606
CORAL GABLES,FL 33134--6727
GLEN EAGLE GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUBINC
1514 GLEN EAGLE BLVD S
NAPLES,FL 34104...8776
GLEN EAGLE GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB INC
1514 GLEN EAGLE BLVD S
NAPLES,FL 34104~.-a776
NAPOLI LUXURY CONDO PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION lNC
1850 FLORIDA CLUB DR
NAPLES,FL 34112...
SEACREST SCHOOL INC
7100 DAVIS BLVD
NAPLES,FL 34104---5314
SEACREST SCHOOL INC
71 00 DAVIS BLVD
NAPLES,FL 34104--5314
SEACREST SCHOOL INC
SEACREST UPPER SCHOOL CAMPUS
7100 DAVIS BLVD
NAPLES,FL 34104..-5314
TERAACINA LLC
1107 HAZELTINE BLVD
CHASKA,MN 55318---1009
UNITY OF NAPLES INC
2000 UNITY WAY
NAPLES,FL 34112--2732
...
Consultez la feuille
www.avery.com
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
The public is invited to attend a neighborhood infol1nation meeting held by Collier _ Davis,
LLC, represented by Shawl Mularkey, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, lnc, on:
Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 5:30 P,M, at
Berean Baptist Church, Sanctuary, 1851 County Bam Road, Naples
Subject Property: Davis Reserve Planned Unit Development - The property is 22,83:!: acres
located in the sontheast quadrant of the intersection of Connty Bam Road and Davis Boulevard,
~
o
~
"-
.'i
"<
l'
~
'0
'"
"
o
e-
-<
Golden Gate
x
"
RO;1rl
Davis Boule aT
~\
E' Project
o ,
0-0 0:.._
UI:Y: ..Jilt:
"
co
"
~
"
~
'0
u
"'
'"
"'
u
I-.J
The property owner is petitioning Collier County to rezone the property from Estates (E) to
Mixed Use Plmrned Unit Development (MPUD), The proposed MPUD will pemlit up to 35,000
square feet of commercial space and up to 286 residential dwelling units of which 20% will be
affordable/workforce housing,
WE VALUE YOUR INPUT
Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and
discuss the project with the owner/developer and CoWer County staff. If you are unable to
attend tbis meeting, but have qnestions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or
e-mail by June 29, 2007 to:
Linda Bedtelyon
Community Planning Coordinator
Community Development &
Environmental Services Administration
2800 North ~Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
(239) 213-2948
Fax: (239) 403-2395
Ii ndabedty I on@eolliergov,net
/:V)A7/lIJO()}10220-/WJMIJ007 NIM\Ol}O-lNfM Ad''''rtisclJlml.'OfJl0_1()-!,du(
<(or--
ro~o
0"""
ON4-
Z ,0
"""
E~ro
- 1''-
(]) I-C"-l
_<1)
-...0 ill
(1JEO"l
D<1)ro
~ 00-
CfJ~
<(-
April 26, 2007
Mr, Property Owner
2601 S, Bayshore Drive
Suite 200
Naples, FL 34104
Dear Property Owner:
Please be advised that Coastal Engineering Consultants, Ioc, has made a formal application to
Collier County to rezone the following described property to Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD):
The property under review is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of County Barn
Road and Davis Boulevard, and consists of 22,83 +/- acres. The property is currently zoned for
Estates (E) residential use, The development will be known as Davis Reserve, currently owned
by CoIIier - Davis, LLC,
We intend to ask the County to approve a rezone to MPUD that would allow construction of up
to 35,000 square feet of commercial space and up to 286 residential dwelling units of which 20%
will be affordable/workforce housing on the subject property,
In order to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of our intention to construct a
Mixed Use Plaruled Unit Development and to give you an opportunity to influence the form of
development intended, we are holding a Neighborhood Information meeting on Tuesday, May
29,2007 at the Berean Baptist Church, Sanctuarv at 5:30 pm. The Berean Baptist Church is
located at 1851 County Barn Road, Naples,
At this meeting we will make every effort to illustrate how we intend to develop the property,
Sincerely,
COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
82::::Ji~lL
Shaun Mularkey, AICP
Senior Planner, Plannin ervices
(239) 643-2324 xl47 or smularkevia!,cecifl,com, Fax (239) 643-4364
C:\Documents and Settblgs\deselemkaylLocal Settings\7'emporary Internet Files\OLK10\02204NIM__Froperty Owners Letters20070404 doc
DRAFT.doc
(i)
RE-SUBMITTAL
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
PROJECT #2004010019
DATE: 11/9/05
MIKE BOSI
COLLIER COUNTY
APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF mSTORIC AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
PROJECT NAME: Davis Reserve
LOCATION (COMMON DESCRIPTION) :
Soutbeast comer of Couutv Bam Road and Davis Boulevard
DATE: 10/13/05
SUMMARY OF WAIVER REQUEST:
The proiect site is not located within or near any areas witb Historical/Arcbaeological probability,
SECTION ONE:
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DATE
A. Name of applicant(s) (if other than property owner, state relationship such as option holder, contract
purchaser, lessee, trustee, etc,): Collier Davlli~.LLC
Mailing Address:
Pbone: (305 )
250 Catalonia Avenue, Suite #606, Coral Gables, FL 33134
350-9898
FAX: ( 305
)
358-5381
B. Name of agent(s) for applicant, if any: Shaun Mularkev, AlCP
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Ine,
Mailing Address:
Pbone: ( 239
3 1 06 SouthJlorseshoe Drive, Naples, F]orida 34 1 04
643-23;14 exL ]47__ FAX: (239 )
643-4364
C, Name of owner(s) of property, if different than applicant:
Mailing Address:
Phone: (
)
FAX: (
)
Note: If names in answers to A and/or B are different than name in C, notarized letter(s) of authorization
from property owner(s) (C) must be attached,
Page 1 of 4
I:\DATA\2002\02204\PlJD Submittal Docs After SLptember 2005\02204HiS1()ji~W.,jvcr20fJ50929.doc
<for--
cO"'-O
.O-q-
o('!'+-
Z ,0
- "T t'")
E~w
III '--("'>I
-Q)
- Ll Q)
{g E gl
ClUo...
a;U
--,(j)
~tc:)
SECTION TWO:
SUBJECT PROPERTY DATA
A. Legal description of subject property, Answer only 1 or 2, as applicable.
1, Within platted subdivision, recorded in official Plat Books of Collier County,
Subdivision Name:
Plat Book
Page
Township
Unit
Block
Lot
Range
Section
Note: Attach copy of the plat book page (obtainable from Clerk's Office at the original scale)
with subject property clearly marked,
2, If not in platted subdivision, a complete legal description must be attached which is
sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property on County maps or aerial photographs, The
legal description must include the Section, Township and Range, If the applicant includes
multiple contiguous parcels, the legal description may describe the perimeter boundary of the
total area, and need not describe each individual parcel, except where different zoning
requests are made on individual parcels, A boundary sketch is also required, Collier County
has the right to reject any legal description which is not sufficiently detailed so as to locate
said property, and may require a certified surveyor boundary sketch to be submitted.
- PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION-
B. Property dimensions
Area:
square feet, or _22,83:t
acres
Width along roadway:
Depth:
C, Present use ofpropcrty:_Ya~ant Land
D, Present zoning classification: Estates
Page 2 of 4
l:\DA TA \1002\02204\J'UD Subminal DDes After September 2005\02204HislmicWaiver20050929.dDC
SECTION THREE:
WAIVER CRITERIAfW AIVER REOUEST
A, Properties located within an area of HistoricallArchaeological Probability with low potential for
historicallarchaeological sites may petition the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator or his designee to waive the requirement for an Historicall Archaeological
Survey and Assessment. The Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator
or his designee shall review and act upon the waiver request within five (5) worldng days of
receiving the application, The waiver request shall adequately demonstrate that the area has low
potential for historicallarchaeological sites, Justification shall include, but not limited to the
following:
I, Aerial Photograph
2, Historical land use description
3, Description ofland cover, land fonnation and vegetation
The Coinmunity Development and Environmental Services Administrator or his designee may deny
a waiver, grant the waiver, or grant the waiver with conditions, The decision of the Community
Development and Environmental Services Administrator or his designee regarding the waiver
request shall be provided to the applicant in writing, In the event of a denial of the waiver request,
written notice shall be provided stating the reasons for such denial. Any party aggrieved by a
decision of the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator or his designee
rcgardulg a waiver request may appeal to the Preservation Board, Any party aggrieved by a decision
of the Preservation Board regarding a waiver request may appeal that decision to the Board of
COWlty Commissioners utilizulg the procedure outlined in Section 2,2.25,11.
)3, Waiver Request Justification
I, Interpretation of Acrial Photograph: _Ihis sitc is hcavilv wooded and consists of mostlv
exoti.f:s._,~
2, Historical Land Use Description: Vacant Land, No historical significance,
3, Land, cover, formation and vegetation description: The site is dominated bv upland habItats
(88,7%), which has been disturbed and contains exotics, Melaleuca and Brazilian pepper.
Aporoxinlatelv 18,96 acres of the propertv is designated as Disturbed Pine ilatwoods IFLUCCS
Code 41 I-l}-,--,^,-poroximatelv 1.30 acres ofthe site contains habitat dominated bv Melaleuca
(FLUCCS Code 424), Tbe remaining habitat on site is considered wetlands 11 1 ,3%), TIlls
includes Disturbed Cvpress Swamp (FLUCCS Code 621-1) and 1.04 acres of Wet Prairie,
Disturbe9 (FLUC~S Code 643-1), and Hvdric Melaceuca IFLUCCS Code 424ID, The wetlands
are located in the north-central area and along the east QQundarv of the oroject site,
4, Olher:
This provision is to cover instances in which it is obvious that any archaeological or historic resources
which may have existed has been destroyed. Examples would be evidence that a major building has been
constructed on the site or that an area has been excavated as a quarry, The Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator may seek counsel of the Chairman ofthe Historic/Archaeological
Preservation Board when it is not completely evident that the site is without archaeological or historic
value,
Page 3 of 4
1,\DA TA\2002\02204\PUD Sllbmlttal Docs After Seplcrnb::r 2005\On04H;SloricWaivl:r2.0050929.doc
<:(01"-
COT- 0
,0-;-
ON,+-
Z ,0
"'N
E"'- 00
~~ ill ('i
-.a QJ
i3 E gJ
C:~CL
QJ QJ
~JCl
SECTION FOUR:
CERTIFICATION
A. The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this application, Any time
delays or additional expenses necessitated due to the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete
information shall be the responsibility ofthe applicant.
B. All information submitted with the application becomes a part of the public record and shall be a
permanent part of the file,
C. All attachments and exhibits submitted shall be of a size that will fit or conveniently fold to fit into
a legal size (8 'Ii" X 14") folder,
(
SIgnature of Applicant
ShaUll Mularkey, AICP
Printed Name of Applicant or Agent
**1'0 BE COMPLETED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION **
SECTION FIVE:
NOTICE OF DECISION
A. 1be Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator or his designee has made
the following determination:
1. Approved on:
2, Approved with Conditious on:
3, Denied on:
(see attachment)
(see attachment)
Page 4 of 4
I:\DA TA',2002',02204~PUD Submirtal Docs After Septcmbc:r ~()05\0220~ll;"1Q' icW,,;ve,20050n9 ,d"c
LEGAL DESCR1PTION
THE NW 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, LESS THE WEST 50 FEET OF THE EAST ]/2 OF THE NW 114, AND LESS THE
NORTH 75 FEET OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4,
AND
THE WEST ]/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM TI-IE NORTH 75 FEET
THEREOF,
AND
THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50
. "
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM TI-IE NORTH 75 FEET
THEEEOF,
AND
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THENW ]/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHlP 50
SOUTH, RA_NGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTiNG THEREFROM THE NORTH 75 FEET
THEHEOF AND THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE l/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOVfNSIllP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
ALL THE ABOVE PROPERTY IS LOCAfED IN COLLIER COuNTY, FLORIDA,
CONTAINING 22,83 ACRES OF LAl-")D MORE OF LESS,
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTfONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD,
tl
:s
VI
'6
.c
:oJ
C/)
-0
o
o UJ
-E 0. CD
O<UN
~:2Q)>-
0)- 01_
._ .l9 0:: c:
~ Q) ._ _ :J
I])Z{ijC/) C-
= .......,.... S2 C
o en ::: ~" '-
,- ::J C/) c: ,g!
u.'U~=
-onl-o
I])'-'-U
x::lOC>
,- --I
:2:u.~
Q) C/)
c:
Q)
VI
Q)
0::
rn
':;:
<U
o
uP
t~
" ' 0
~ " _ ",'
~ c. ~(j)""
Ui ~(j)
<i " ~3
. b 0
E 0 >- o:h-z
.' ~ N
U " 0 if':)9
u ;... 0 . c
~ N ~ _, CO
u: W :J Ll:I'C')>
W ..J <( ,
15 0: 0
.J W 0:
u: "' << a.
..~
FLORIDA DRP AR1MENT OF 51 ATE
Glenda E, Hood
5<ecretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORlCAL RESOURCES
.,;4L-;'!!I...
i~L;;:~t:~,
~. . ,.... ,'"
~:()' '.' .' ": ....~
~~:.~
Jul)' 21,2004
M" Carrie L AllisDn
EonhBal,ncc
2579 NQrth TolcQQ BJMC BOU{cY01d
Norrh Porr, FloridA )42!9
FAX# : 94 J.4 2 5- i77E
Dear Ms Allison
In rcspons~ to your inquiry of July 20, 2004, the Florida Maslor Site File lists no previously recorded
cultural resources in the following pllIcel:
TSOS, R26E, Section 8,
in interpreting the iCSU!ts of our search, p!ea~c, n::rru:mbcr the fQl10vring points:
. Areas which hllvt not been completel)' Burveyed, lueh ~& you~, m&y contllil1
uorcEorded arcbaeological sites, unrecorded historically impor!llJll struclu reSf or both.
. As you mal' know, stllte :lod feder~llaws require farm:!ll environmental review for 50lll1e
project.., Recard se...rcbe! by the Haff of tbe Florid", Master Site File do not ~otl5titute
sucb :>. review of cultun] nsources, If your project falls under these !all'l, you should
contact tbe Complill1oee Review Section of tbe Bureau of Historic Preservation at 850-
245-6333 or at this addre!"
S inccr~ly j
~~~
Wm, Gerald L. Brinkley, g50.~
Archaeological Data Analyst, Florida Master Silo File
Division of Historical Resources
R, A., Gray Building
500 South Bronough Stroel
Tall.h.."ee, Florida 32399-0250
Stele SunCorn: 205-6440
Fax lin" &50-245-6439
Email: l..uflle@das.slQrejl.us
Wob; hltp:/lwww.dos,stalejI,lJJ/dhr/msf1
5lIO S. l:lraMugll Streel . TolI.I"55co, FL 32399.025D . http://,,,,,,,,,Oh,,it.gc,corn
o Dll'...:r:r' OHler
(850) 245-6300' FAX: 2'!5..{rl35
1l/,K.hI!,~~lQKiCll RCAC.;u-1'h
(S50) 2'.5-6444 . FAX "5""''''
d Bbtf.lrh !?-~~:1rv3t'0J1
(!~O) 1454U3l . FAX, 2'-5-b:37
o Hillcricmlfttiu:lC"1.l1:l'lj
(e~) lAS-oWl' FAX', 2,5M"3
,.... h. 1 " _L n _.....;~ _.1 n((I~A
n p, A .,_,~.;.... Il'..M,,,,,,,i nl'f;~...
r1'T'liflHlat?r::c:1.nfl,2,J off'r!"
--
\
"
32
03
34
'~"o~~nllT ~o.CH aOA
5
.
3
B
10
Pl"~ ~ln~E M'~
17
15
15
,
"
,
22 i
~
20
21
--- !--
I
I
, .' ,y'
~'/
2'
27
3D
29
'~
'..~..~'
1tITe~S"J/;Jt 1~
34
35
2
COLO." ChTJ;~DUlHUD
11
14
23
26
l3
~. 35
..::::::::::--.
~~~
--.
31
32
500"'"
."'~"r~-Y
I rl "'~'''"' ../ ---~:
LJ'~I< .~mr
~ PRI'>'o"IIS\.Y5lJl'=^~[J. ~ Site
~ "'''CATE.~ .."', nf "'S'OItl~l/"'CJ1.o.W,{J~liJ.l pn",n'n'Lm Location
* "'OlU.TeS H,';lORlC SI"VClU~r IH", TO ~CJ>l()
€I '''''',Al[S ,nDv>lo,OC;l"^l SIlL (""T lC :;UL(j
\ _~ _:":~:.~::o:.:.r::.,
2
11
RNG 26 \ RNG 27
36
12
~
t3
,
.-
24
25
36
--
12
I
TWe 4B
rwp 49
..,
'"_<Jon'
TWP 49
TWP 50
"
5
,
,
DRANGLE
lC"L~lJTI
0
31
32
6
5
---
"R. 1\ ^WC~l11n ULrT 1_,'
6
L:J
BELLE: MEADE NW QUA
llE.A~-'2L1:ilSIO R I C &L---.L.A.F.QiAEO LOG
GMP ANALYSIS
The development of approximately 22,83+/- acres of property in Collier County
as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as the Davis
Reserve MPUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of
Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan
(GMP),
The Davis Reserve MPUD is a master planned community and is planned to
encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination as set forth in the Land
Development Code (LDC) Planned Unit Development District,
The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed-Use, Urban Residential
Subdistrict Land Use Designation as identitied on the Future Land Use Map as
required in Objective 1, and Policy 5,1 through 5,3 of the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE),
The Davis Reserve MPUD will be consistent with the growth policies, and
applicable comprehensive planning objectives for the following reasons:
A, Future Land Use Element/Use and Density
1
"
The commercia! and multi-family residenfial uses are consistent
with fhe Land Use Designation Description of the Future Land Use
Element which allows these types of uses,
2,
The proposed density of 12,53 units per gross acre is consistent
with the Density Rating System of the FLUE for the following.
reasons:
The following is a summary of the Density Raling Ca/culation:
STEP #1 -Calcuiations for Resideriliai ConllJonent:
Base Density
Residential Density Band/Proximity
to Mixed Use Activity Center
.6c:~s. tolwgJ2r10Qle~()II~c:iQL~QQQL___ -
=
4 dwelling units/acre
3 dwelling units/acre
1 dwellina unit/acre
Permitted Density
= 8 dwelling units/acre
Density Calculated for Step # 1
17,83 acres x 8,0 dwelling units/acre
= 143 units
:: ~FFOHDABLE HOVSJNG"*
tXPEfJITED IlEVIEWH
PUDZ-2004-AIl_6829 ' ,
DA VII', IlESEIlVE RE\: 7
Project: 2004010019
Dote: 9124107 DUE: ]0/]5107
<{at--
ro~o
.0""1"
QC'\J,-,-
Z ,0
..,.
E~ gg
ill '-('J
...~ ill
-.0 ill
(GECJ)
~(])(lj
iD uO-
Ql
C}lr\
q~ ,-.J
STEP #2 _ Calculations for Additional Residential Units Permitted for
usina Mixed-Use Component:
Density Calculated for STEP #2
22,83 acres x 4,0 dwelling units/gross acre
=
91 units
STEP #3 -Additional Density for Affordable Housina Density Bonus as
provided for in the Collier County LDC Section 2,06,00:
The following is based on the Density Bonus within the Affordable
Housing Density Bonus Rating System:
Providing 10 % at 81-100% MI (gap housing) yields a bonus of 1.0
dwelling units per acre, Providing 10% at 61-80% MI (workforce
housing) yields a bonus of 2,0 dwelling units per acre for a total of 3
dwelling units per acre bonus,
Density Calculated for STEP #3
22,83 acres x 3 units/gross acre
=
68 units
Maximum Units Permitted
=
302 units
SUMM/:,RY OF MAXIMUM DENSITY:
1, Residential Component
(17.83 du x 8,0 du/acre)
2, Mixed Use Component
(22,83 du x 4,0 du/acre)
3, Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB)
(22.83 du x 3 du/acre)
TOTAL
=
143 units
=
91 units
=
68 units
302 units
Maximum of 302 dwelling units -;. 22,83 acres = 13,23 units per acre,
Density requested by proposed development:
Maximum of 286 dwelling units -;. 22,83 acres = 12,53 units per acre, This is
94.7% of the permitted 302 dwelling units1,
A total of 57 affordable units are planned in this development.
which is 20 % of the total units (286 total units are proposed),
All affordable units will comply with requirements of the Affordable
Housing Density Bonus Agreement.
1 Though eligible for 68 bonus units according to Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program, only
57 units or 83,8% are being utilized in this MPUD,
The requested density of 12,53 dwelling units per acre is within the
permitted density of 13,23 dwelling units per acre.
As prescribed in the Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Mixed Use Sub-
district, the Davis Reserve MPUD will provide a minimum of the 91
residential units with 9 affordable and 9 workforce housing units,
B, ConservaJion and Coastal Management Element (CCME)
1, The project proposes to preserve 5,29 acres as native
preservation areas, Policy 6,1,1 of the CCME requires that the
project set aside 5,29 acres as preserve, Therefore the project is
consistent with Policy 6,1,1 of the CCME,
C, Transportation Element
1, This project will meet and be consistent with Policy 5,1.
concurrency requirements based on the roadway improvements
currently slated for construction within the five year planning
period, Additionally, this project is located within the East
Central TransportaJion Concurrency Management Area (TCMA)
which provides alternative routes and means of analyzing new
development for transportation concurrency and further
supports the abiliiy of this project to meet concurrency,
Collier Davis, LLC
250 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 606
Coral Gables, FL 33134
(305) 461-2330 (305) 461-2346 Fax
December 21,2007
Collier County
Board of County Commissioners
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
.. AFFORDABLE HOUSING..
..EXPEDITED REVIEW..
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 REV: 8
DA VIS RESERVE
Project: 2004010019
Date: 5/15/08 DUE: 6/6/08
RE: Davis Reserve - Density Bonus Explanation & Analysis
Dear Commissioners:
Attached is the economic analysis requested by your department as part of the
application for zoning of Davis Reserve, The purpose of the economic analysis is to
demonstrate the need for the number of market rate units requested through a density
bonus, Those market rate units will not be impacted by any income and pricing
restrictions and are needed to offset the cost of providing the public benefit resulting
from including both 10% Workforce and 10% GAP units at a loss, This analysis
demonstrates both the economic justification for the density bonus being requested plus
the need for additional subsidy because the loss is far greater than the market rate units
will pay for.
The developer provided this analysis with the input and assistance of our engineers and
planners at Coastal Engineering as well as the market and construction cost information
provided to us by the appraisal division of Coastal Engineering, All of the information
contained in the report was discussed and verified through consultation with other
experts as well, Because of the extensive amount of information and intricacy of the
material the staff at Advanced Housing Corporation spent several months culling
through, analyzing and interpreting all of the information while also assembled the data
along with performing the extensive numerical and verbal analysis portion of the report,
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this analysis is for the developer to economically justify the need for an
affordable housing density bonus by demonstrating that the additional profit from the
extra unrestricted market rate units that are granted through the density bonus system
will provide sufficient compensation to offset the entire loss caused by the production
and sale of the income and price restricted Workforce and GAP units, The attached
worksheets provide an in depth analysis of the income and costs associated with the
entire project focusing on the specifics of the density bonus analysis, The sheets in the
financial section are built upon one another and incorporate the detailed numbers in
each of the previous work sheets.
<( 0 1-
00.".....0
0""
nN___
Z . ()
. ~-
:.=,- 1.7)
~ mC"
-..c~ ill
_gj E gJ
c:~[L
~;, ':tl
,,1'Q
CONCLUSION:
If this project was a high rise on the ocean that sold units for $3,000,000 and generated
a profit of $500,000 per unit, then only 5 additional units would be required to make up
for the $2,649,372 loss generated by the production and sale of the restricted sales
priced Workforce and GAP units, However, this project is not designed, proposed or
located for that market. This project is oriented to house permanent residents since it
has a limited amenity package and is not an expensive luxury product.
The economic analysis shows that even the density bonus being requested is
insufficient to compensate the developer for the burden of providing 10% Workforce
plus 10% GAP housing units which represents 57 units being built at a loss, This
analysis is not based on the project in the near term because it is not economically
viable under present markefconditions, Even using future projections this analysis
clearly demonstrates that further subsidy will be required and is hereby being
requested, The profit on the market rate units of $18,257/unit will not be achievable until
2011 and is not sufficient to make up for the loss of $46,480 for every one of the 57
Workforce and GAP units built. A total of 137 bonus units would be needed to make up
for the loss using only the profit on the added density, That method of compensation for
providing income and price restricted units would push the total unit count up by an
additional 69 units to a total of 355 units,
The density bonus being requested amounts to only 3 units per acre and generates a
totai of 68 units. The Proforma limits the density to 286 units and thus only utilizes 50 of
the 68 potential bonus, At $18,257 profit per unit, the added profit is $912,850 for the 50
units and not the $1,241,476, (if the entire 68 unit bonus was used), The profit
generated from the 50 additional market rate units is only 36% of the loss of $2,649,372
from the development and sale of the Workforce and GAP units, Even if the maximum
68 unit density bonus is utilized that will only be enough to make up about half of the
loss generated by the Workforce and GAP units, Further subsidy is needed to
compensate the developer for providing the public benefit the Workforce and GAP units
represented. Rather than asking for double the density which will change the character
of the product and site plan to something less attractive, the developer is asking to be
compensated through other means for the loss from having produced housing
requested by the County through other means,
We suggest that the compensation for providing the Workforce and GAP units at a
substantial loss should be a subsidy from the County's affordable housing fund, or any
other source, in the amount equal to all impact fees with the exception of the road
impact fees, That subsidy is about half the relatively costly impact fee burden.
Affordable housing is rarely produced without some form of direct subsidy, The existing
County impact fee deferral is not adequate because it still has to be paid and should not
be passed on to any of the individual unit purchasers, The County affordable housing
fund is to be used to produce affordable units, which are being provided by this project,
since the County had identified the need for those units and the bonus as compensation
for fulfilling the public need.
ANALYSIS:
The impact of the density bonus versus the burden of providing the Workforce and GAP
units must be considered within the context of sets of facts: 1) the market at the time of
sale 2) the type and relative profitability of the project and 3) the specific cost burden
related to this particular site and 4) the density of the project. The bottom line is that this
project needs the additional subsidy to enable it to be built and produced since the
project must carry the burden of providing the Workforce and GAP units.
1- THE MARKET- In 2006 the conventional unencumbered market rate units could
have been sold for $275 /sq, ft, but in 2008 the same unit would only bring $180/
sq, ft, and would sell at a dramatically slower pace, if at all. It was not advisable
to use the economic figures from the present market because there would be no
hope of demonstrating any profit for the market rate units and thus no subsidy to
overcome the burden of the financial Workforce and GAP units, In order to create
a productive analysis, the projected sales price of $230/sq.ft, was used in the
hope this price structure would be achieved in the year 2011 when the market
should stabilize, Both the price and the sales pace are expected to increase
modestly thereafter.
2- THE TYPE OF PROJECT - The density bonus, as structured, would produce a
substantial subsidy if the market rate units were very expensive and profitable to
build, That does not necessarily apply to this project since it is scheduled to be
modestly priced given the location and lack of amenities, A modestly priced
project will need many more units beyond the bonus units being requested to
make up for the $2,649,372 loss from the production and sale of the Workforce
and GAP units, The 229 unencumbered units are projected to sell in 2011 for an
average of $274,000.
If the developer is forced to sell the units at higher prices that only out of town
and second home buyers can afford, then the County and the developer will lose
an opportunity to meet the needs of the local working buyer in this relatively
central location, This type of project planned in this location which is close to
areas of employment will assist in decreasing the traffic burden and lessen the
number of cars on the roadway,
3- THE SPECIFICS OF THE SITE - This site has relatively heavy site development
costs because of its wetlands and the need for imported fill and to create the
site's water retention requirements, The relatively costly off site improvement
expense which is greater than many other sites should also be considered, The
combination of all the impact fees plus the cost of the restricted units, amount to
a financial burden that will challenge the project's financial viability, The type of
product that can be developed and sold in that location can not be costly enough
to overcome the burden of the loss from the Workforce and GAP units
<(or--.
co.,-Q
0,,"
n CJ 4-
Z : 0
,..-:!- (')
'= - OJ
I]) '--('I
,~ UJ
~-.O t!)
mE OJ
o w <IJ
ili u [.1-
O)Sp
<(u
4- DENSITY - The developer has limited the density of the site to 286 units in order
to build an attractive and desirable type of housing product that is appealing to
the primary home, working family type of buyer, At that density, the project would
provide that type of attractive and marketable unit. If the developer set out to
build a rental apartment development, then the developer would have requested
a greater density since the property could accommodate a greater density,
However, the development is planned as a traditional neighborhood project with
a commercial component that would also have the potential of functioning as a
"live-work" community with mixed income and mixed use characteristics, This is
the type of model development that is being called for in many planning circles
and was recommended to the developer by the County staff early on in the
planning stages, since it will take cars off the roadway and create stronger
community ties,
EXPLANATION OF FIGURES:
The analysis has been organized into various Excel Worksheets which are built upon
and linked to each other. These worksheets and the explanation of this analysis are as
follows: '
land Development Costs - These costs were provided by the project engineers
and depict the entire land development costs plus the related professional fees,
permitting fees, financing and all other land development costs,
Impact Fees - The current fee schedule for each product type has been used,
Cost Details - List of all soft, financing and shared costs such as the amenity
package and the off site costs,
Units & Prices - Includes the unit breakdowns and descriptions for the Market,
the Workforce and GAP product. It also includes the commercial. section,
although the commercial section does not have a part in this analysis because
the bonus provided is only for market rate units, This calculation is made for the
Market units in 2006 through 2012 based on the assumption that the market will
begin to stabilize in 2010 at a price level halfway between the 2006 and 2007
level. It will then stabilize in 2011 at a $12,50/ sq ft increase from 2010,
Income & Expenses - This is the analysis of the sales proceeds and all of the
development plus building costs, At the top of the page, the fixed costs are
broken down to indicate which product type will carry each portion, This was
done based on the net square foot area of the product type in order to place a
lesser burden on the Workforce and Gap units, This section shows the resulting
profit of each product type and for each year.
Subsidy Calculation - This section is an attempt to show the number of market
rate units needed to compensate for the loss the development has to carry
because of the requirement to provide 10% Workforce plus 10% GAP housing
units. At the top of the page, the "break even" number of density bonus units is
analyzed. This shows that based on the profit of the bonus units, an extra 137
market rate units are needed to produce enough profrt to pay for the loss rather
than only the'68 units being provided, This altemative would require an additional
69 units be built
Individual Unit Analysis - This is a demonstration of the economics of individual
units, This analysis is made of both the unrestricted Market Priced units as well
as the price restricted Workforce and GAP units,
COMMENTARY:
The "inclusionary zoning" approach utilized, by the County runs counter to the
established method of creating subsidy for affordable housing developments that is
known as "linkage", The need for affordable housing is generated primarily by the
creation of new commercial projects because they rely on the employment of a given
percentage of low and medium wage wo/1(ers, It is those workers who either come to or
remain in the area because of the employment made available by the commercial
development who need affordable housing,
Unkage legislation requires the payment of linkage fees when new commercial
developments are built However, in Collier County legislation payments are voluntary.
Instead a payment burden is placed on residential development The Linkage concept is
also the basis of the State of Florida's source that provides affordable housing money in
the form of State SHIP ownership and SAIL rental programs funded by the Surtax tax
on deeds for non-residential property transfers, Requiring new residential projects,
especially moderately priced ones like the subject property rather than commercial
employers to pay for the cost of affordable housing, runs counter to the established
practices.
A mandatory linkage fee approach should be reconsidered after a full review of the
detrimental economic effect this approach has on the subject development and is
further justification to provide the additional subsidy being requested for having
furthered the public interest by providing the income and price restricted Workforce and
GAP units.
The voluminous nature of the report is commentary to the complex manor of the topic
and the requirement for thoughtful analysis by the recipients. If there are any questions,
please feel free to direct them to me at 305-984-3595 and I will be glad to spend the
time necessary to help anyone fUlly understand the analysis.
Yours truly,
/" =- ~
C---aariYGoldmeier
/"-
~
~
N
N
~
m
?-
m
o
u
I-
Z
w
:2i
w
..J
I-
i=
z
w
c
z
<(
I-
Z
w
:2i
Q.
o
..J
W
>
W
C
w
0::
Q.
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0, 0 0 0 ~ 0
CD 00 <6 00 ~ 00
- N M M <F> N N
<II <F> <F> ~ <F> N
0 <F> <F>
c.J
Cii
" Ig c
~ "
E :l 'C E
t; OJ
Q) " ,so c ..J
"" ~ " >-
c c " 0 ~
~
.c I'g c 2: ';;
f:: .!l1 :l C 0
<( w c.. rn w f-
0 0 0
0 ~ ~
0 0 0
0 0 0
- 0 0 O.
<II ci
0 0 0
c.J co ,~ '"
<F> '" <F>
c.. Ul
"
c.. ::J u
0 5: .:::
[j) oes "
~ c.. [j)
c n:: c
:l 0
0 w ~
() 0 2
~ :2:
., =* 5: 1;)
E c
Q) 0 LL 0
- () [j) ()
III
Ql
Ql
U.
c:
OJ
'ijj
Ql
C
OJ
c
';:
Ql
Ql
C
OJ
c:
W
'tl
Ql
...
<1l
E
:;:::
III
W
o
o
ci
o
0_
o
o
N
<F>
"
-
.,
o
C,)
Ol
"
;:
Q)
Q)
c
Ol
c
w
<Ii
-
o
f-
'0
Q)
-
co
E
.;::;
<n
Q) co 0
Q) 0 ell
LL 0 0 0 '" 0
- ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 N ~ ci
0 ci ~ 0 ~ <( ~ ~ ~ ~ CD <( ~
u Z ~ m 0 Z
Q) z z l() 0 Z Z '" Z Z Z Z Z M '" m Z
Q. '" CD ~ /"-- oS
<II <F> <F> <F> '" '"
.5 <F> ~ <F>
<F>
Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C') 0
Q) 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 '" C') 0 0
u. 0 '" ci 0 0 0 0 0 '" 0 '" '" r-: r-: 0 0
- 0 0 0 0 '" co ~ 0
'11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C') 0
'" l() '" '" ~ '" 0 0, "', 0 '" 0 0 "'. ell z '" 0
~ N .f N '" ~ CD '" co N r- CD
Q) N <F> <F> ~ C') <F> CD ~ <F> <F> <F> N '" ~ <F>
Cl. <F> <F> <F> <F> '" <F> <F> <F> <F> <F>
.,
- 0
'2 ~ ~ 0 ~ /"- <( <( ~ CD 0 ~ ,CD ~ ~
:::l Z Z "" CD 0 '" Ul""
Z Z C') Z ~ Z N l() Z QjN Z Z
ci M
Z .c
"0
u
c:
C1l
- 0 0 0 0 c:i 6
., 1;)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "C: 0 0
c.J '" 0 '" 0 ~ 0 '" 0 '0 ci 0
0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C1l 0
Q) '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 o. Z Z Z Z 0 c: u Z '" 0
., oS N N N '" N 0 Ul CD
C1l <F> ~ <F> <F> C') <F> CD <F> U U ~ <F>
m <F> <F> <F> <F> c: <F>
2 .!l1
1;) ,
c:
o .~
u-
"" ~L::
" 0 0 0 0 0 "
:::l '" 0 <( '" 0 0 0 ;;: -
<( <( ~ <( ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~
., z z 0 0 z z 0 " " '"
., 0 z '" z '" 0 0 0 z Ul g ~ z z
0 ~ <F> <F> ~ <F> N U
c.J <F> <F> <F> c: ,so
C1l ~
2 u
'" S
;;:
" u
:0 '"
Ul Ul 15
i" " C1l
., I~ ~ .0 l<t
"" <( <( <( u <( ~ ~ :l :l - :l <( 0 :l <( ~
" z z z '" z u t; g t; - 15 c: -
C1l Z Z Z S u Z Z
:::l u :l :l
~ Ul ~ '0 Ig
1;) 1;)
~ "
0
~ :0
M '"
.0
0
.~ .~ 15
CC -
.~ .~ 0
c c " " _0
Q) <( ~ :<'l: ~I:<'l: :<'l: ~ ~ uu 0' :<'l: <( :<'l:
oJ) " 'in ,- oJ) 0
., Z Ul-o Ul ~ Z
:::l Z Z zz z z z " Q) i.L z z
Om Oii) n:: n::
" oJ) , ,
n:: n:: " "
0 0
zz
I~ E
;;: "
oJ) c: C 1]1
"> ,9 ;;: ,9 5:
0.. E " t; t; [j)
::J oJ) n:: " 0 "
5: ~ ~ ';; '~
iii " n:: ro
0..- [j) Ul n:: Ul c: U5
.s C
n:: ~ t; 0.. c: g 0 0
w " ~ c oes '" ~
c: 0:: z
- " " ;;: :g :l
~0 ~
E E oJ) 2 1;) ;;:
u ~ a. ';; (jj '5 c: oJ)
:~ ~ Cii 0 " OJ 0 ';;
u i': C ill n:: g .~ () "
'" n::
.s ..J ~ " c: > c: oJ)
0 " .~
0 0 g g' E ~ 0 '" Qj c: 1 ~
'9 c: 0:: " " '"
., :2: :2: 'C I:' > g] f; c: C ..J '"
E 5: 5: ~ t5 '" s '" [j) S .So c: ,so
'" " u ~ '"
Q) LL LL ,Q (jj (3 c: x '" c: c: :J 0
"" [j) [j) n:: w w ::J W w f-
~
M
.,;
'"
m
N
co
N
...
II
-
.,
o
c.J
Ol
"
:€!
E
~
Q)
Cl.
<Ii
-
o
I-
'0
Q)
-
co
E
.;::;
.,
w
...
III
o
U
OJ
c
:;:::
:!::
E
..
Ql
Q.
'tl
Ql
...
<1l
E
:;:::
III
W
oP
mtg
-U":l
\1.l~Q.
~- ill
"
"
(0~3
"'./'
o. Z
-rvO
./'0
o ......C0
-....OP
<( 0 r--
oo~o
.0;-
Or.,.!........
Z
E ,
ill '-("J
_m
-.om
"'EO>
uru'"
O::uD-
rum
~O
0 0 0 N 0 0 <0 ~ 0 0 en '" '"
0 '" 0 <0 '" 0 '" ~ '" 0 <Xl '" '"
0 0 to N 0 cci <Xl ~ N ci ai N ".;
'<t co '" ~ 0 0 N N ~ 0 It> '<t co
~ ~ "C " <0 0 ". '" 0 0 o. <Xl co <0
'" cO <0 .,; cD 0 ~ .,; cD N '" cD ..: .,;
0 <Xl '" '" ... 0 ~ ~ '" <0 N It> '" ~
c.J It> '" N 0 '" " ..... N '" ~ '" .....
- N '" . '" '" ... '" ..:'" ...
~ ~
'" '" '" ....
~~
'. ii,'"~ . i 'i"
'" ,',
;!:: " I '" U1 "f
It> '" <0 CX)
c: en co '" '" I;:: CX) N ,c',
~ N ..: 0 '<t '7, I~ <0 tD~
0 N N en -i" I. ri LC)':':
Z ~ > !. I" '"
, , <';' ,:'
, ,;'0 , ,,-,.
II -'-
~
'"
~ 0 0
'2 '" 0 0 c.J
0 0
::l 0 0 0 0 0 '" co ci 'C
~ ~ 0 '" '" 0 '" <0 ..... '" "
" N ""': 0 '" 0 0 ~
a. en 0 <0 ~ 0 0 '" cci to 0, ..
N N ..... " E
~ <0 ... 0 ri '" '"
'" '" <F> <F> 0 .,; N <F> N :;;
0 <F> <F> '" '"
~ '"
c.J <F> W
--
'" ~ i:'i :!!-a'?-
;!:: :!:: '= '= '" '" u '= '"
c: ru m '" '" o 0
::l '" "'~
f-~
-
'x
w I,~
-
E '"
u
~ 0:: .c
0 C '" .c Q)
- ~ ::> a; Q;
rn ru C ~ ~
'tl E w 19 tl "
C Q) .0 0:: Q)
.. > ~ 0:: '0 0 U) 0:: >-
'" ::> ~ ,Q 0:: 0 tl
1;' ~ ~ m 1:5 '" '0 .Q 0::
tl -'" 0:: ro m
'" ::> g ro '" OJ
" g- o:: tl
m ~ ~ 0::
'" C '" u; '0:: " Q;
'tl :!2 :!2 LL u ~
E " ~ ~ 0:: 0:: '" Q) ro .c
Q) 0 '" '" '" 0 Q) '0 0 0
'" 0:: D- D- (jj --" 0 u u:: (jj 5: :;;: 0
....
<Xl
cO
<Xl
M
o
M
N
cO
....
II
~
'"
o
c.J
"
~
::I
-
tl
::I
~
~
'"
..
~
-
.::
iO
~
o
I-
'C
"
~
..
E
.;:;
'"
W
....
II)
o
U
Ql
...
:J
....
(J
:::l
...
....
II)
CO
...
-
C
"C
Ql
....
CO
E
:;::
II)
W
""" """ 0 0 ~ <DO <D ~ NU'l COOM "'~ .... O"'N O~N
M C 0 ~ 0> NO ~ ~~ MO'" U'l.... 0 N"'CO N~M
.... ~ Iri Iri ,...: cDtti cO ~ Iii"': ttidd ria) .t MNN C""it..:('Ij
.... .... .... ;b 0> M.... N M ~ ~ COU'lO "'~ 0 U'l::j:U'l U'l00>
'" ~ 1()U'l 0> OO~ ~"'N ~ 0 CO N M NU'l....
ui Iii Iii ~M ,..; <r-"'aS~ O~~ N"'r"""~ rilti'ai' M~M
.... ~ ~ ~ ....... '" U'lMN N...... M...... U'l ... ... U'l......
C) N ~ ... CO M~~ ... ... ... ...
~ .. ... ... ... ... N'tlttlt
N ...
N
~
c: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 .."l .."l .."l LLU:: .."l 2U::U:: LLLLLL j1LLLI.. 2LLU:: <Il LL LL
E '1: '1: 1: 0' 0' '1: 'c 0" 0- 0'0'0' '2. 0" cr '1: 0' 0' ~ r:r 0-
E 0 0 0 U)U) 0 oU)rn u)u)u) oU)U) oU)U) oU)U)
0 '" '" '" "'0 '" "''''''' "''''''' "''''''' "''''''' "'''''''
'-' CO CO CO "'''' CO CO........ "'........ CO .... .... CO........ CO........
,- N N N ~.... N Na)CO ~COCO NCOCO NCOCO NCOCO
- tDC"1- cD CO- li)- cD c:.D co-<6 CD~cD co-m
~ 0
:>. N ~ N
0 M M
C ....
0 ....
<ll <ll
-C
'-' c
~ :J
Co
Vl +
01 01
c: c:
:~ :~ u::u:: u::u: u::u:: U:::U:
:::=-:::..
i -- 0'0' ro 0'0' 0'0' 0' 0'
~ ~ 0 0
0 0 U)U) OJ U)U) U)U) U)U)
c: c: ~
~ ~ ro
:> ;J ~ ~ 00 00 00 00
OJ OJ 00 :? 00 00 00
u:: u: au 00 ~ ~ 0_ o~ o_q
c c ~
(/) (/) ::> 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
~
01 01 ~ U:::U::: CLU::U::
> > Q) ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J
'- 0'0' crcrO'
<( <( ro 0 0 0 U)(j) 0 0 (j)(j)(j) 0 0 0
~ (;j ~ (;j (;j ~ ~ (;j ~ (;j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OJ OJ OJ OJ <ll OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ <ll OJ OJ OJ OJ
0. 0. 0. 0.0. 0. 0.0.0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
'" 1.0 1.0 0 '" 01 N'" ~ 01....'" 0 DO "'Ol~ a)"'~ o '" ~
CO """ """ '" a) .... NN '" MOlO MO~ ~~~ ~"'''' NN'"
N CO CO N r--- N DO 01 o--ir---: "''''~ N NN o~o <.Oeri""';
<Ji <Ji '" 0 0 <f>W '" N....Ol ON'" ~"'''' '" 01 '" CO~'"
CO 01 '" ~ N_O_O_ 0 00 ~~N "'....'" ~N'"
W W cO COOCO U7~W WWW Y}Vt~ <f> f.f> W
en en <f>N ~ W
W&'7
(/)
W
W
u.. VI
!:: :~
:>
o;=-
~""
g)ii:ai
~Q.~
ca(ij(ij
" " "
:a:a:.c
'" '" '"
:0:0:0
""""""
" " "
" " "
'" '" '"
"'''''''
~ ~ ~
'" '" '"
E E E
www
"iii
.,
"
::::-'"
""0
:;::; 'in
" '"
.ga::
,- ,
III "
'" 0
~~
'" OJ
~ ~
u::u:
~
"iii
.,
"
"'~-
:'2~~
g)ii:ai
~Q.fE.
<Il <Il III
"0"0"0
.. .. ..
000
a: a:: a:
<Il
-'"
~
..
0.
n
"iii
.,
"
"'~-
"'CCLI::
'0 .~ lS
",:a:: '"
e:..9..e:..
~.!a~
'ra 'ra 'ra
-, -, -,
<Il
-'"
~
..
0.
"iii
"
,2
'"
'"
a:
... -
rou-u-
;;C'C'
c:(/)(/)
<ll <ll
-C t.J oiii
'~ !E (jj
a::: 0 a:::
<Il
'"
'i:
~
..0
:J
<Il
'0
o
J:
"
rn
<D
....
CO
...
I()
N
M
~
-
"iii
.,
"
"'-~
"'C(1)::
'en .~ J9
",:a:: '"
a:oa:
~~~
"'''''''
" " "
B:E:E
'S ':;'S
Clll:ll III
>>>
o 0 0
~~~
'"
m=
~""
~E4t
~Q.e:..
~ ~-
" " "
'" '" '"
E E E
'" CIl '"
" " "
~ .... ~
000
...... ...
" " "
www
~ ~ ~
...J...J...J
O(E'
WCD
uo::>
Q)~o..
or- '"
t J)
<0~3
""-"
O' Z
~NO
-"'0'
C)""">'CXl
-JO.P
o
....
<(Ot--
00.,......0
0-';-
o "'"-
Z '
E
ill -,'\I
_<D
-.o<D
CUEOl
Umffi
CUO-
<D<D
.?to
'<t .... '<t '" N '" ....
.... 0 '" ~ '" CO N
<D cxi M.... oi <D <D
.... '" 0'" CO '" '"
"'''' "'''' o CO en
~M i't tON cxi"
"'N co'<t N
q... o. ... '<t'" '"
.... .... ui'" uS
... ... ... ...
~
.E3 .in
"c *
:;] E
<D .
co ;;;
N .
~,
bi
~
C"J
OJ
::Jcxi"
o~
.
,"
.l!l .
"c '*
:;] E
c.o .s
co .
N .
"
.E
~
>
.
.
.
E
,
.
.
.
01
>
<{
N
~
0">
f"-
f"-
::Jrn
o~
C3 0 ID 0
Cl.. ...... n. ........
0">0
":~
<D<i
~'<t
<D'<t
M 0)-
<fl ~
'"
'"iij
:::
<:
::::-Q)
"'0
+:i "en
C Q)
~a::
,- ,
1/1 <:
Q) 0
~~
~ ~
Q) Q)
- -
.. ..
s:s:
~ N
~ ....
0">0>
C"J~
N..&
N co
f"- 0">
cr) 00-
<fl~
<fl
'"iij
:::
C
::::-Q)
"'0
+:i "Cjj
" Q)
~c::
'~'d
~~
~ ~
Q) Q)
;: ;:
Q) Q)
rn(f)
"
moo
~ "e
<D <D
:Q E
1/1 E
Ol 0
O::u
~ro
0-
f--~
.E
rn
>
.
.
.
E
,
.
.
.
0,
~
o
::J
0-
ro
"0
f--
!~
n~~
"'~...
~~~
~~tn
Ol
o
o
_LL
CU-"
as:
:goes
al-o
'" > ~
_ C 0
00>;=
f--U<{
~
~
.q:
<D
""
M
~
<D
N
...
f--
U
<{
0-
::;;
~~
al--'
LL<{
"'-0--'
~ co <{
LLOf--
0::0
-gel--
&~O
z
roro[2
~~<.9
'"
f"-
co
'<t
...
m~
~
N
<ci
<D
0>
05
N
co
cO
...
~~
'"
~ to.
""
'"
ro
........5D..
"c :;::l <{
:;]<:(9
-~od
~5LL
ajUS:
0100
cu--
Q;~~
~g~
--""'-~"f,-_.,
""
'"
'"
,..:
N
...
i
o
C"J
'"
un
"''''
cr cr
1/1 '"
- -
1/1 '"
~ ~
~SQ
00
-0 '0
-
'1:
::J
Ol
o
'"
Q.
(f)
ro
'(3
~
al
E
E
o
U
C
1/1 0
Ol '" '"
G> ~ Q)
LLLLal
O~LL
"Ol-
e.. -5 19
Eoo
_ f--
"''''
N'"
'"
-
1/1
Ol
Ol
LL
~
Ol
.c
6
06
U
'"
Q.
.5
ro
"0
f--
r--
<:)
mlmr--
00 oor--
o 000
cD o:iN
00 ......
... "''''
c.D- r-:.f::1'7
'" '"
~
~
N
~
'" ~ '"
Q)
Q) E Q)
Q) ~ LL
LL Q) I
1:5 D- O- Q)
CO' E :J
O-OJ - rn
E='='-l ' >
_aJ<{E -0
(!) cncnf-E c
00 Q.) Q) 00 CO
N D::D::f-0 -l
.~
C
:J
-
0
it
!omm;r--
00)('<) CD
00)0 M
O-Nc-0 u:S
GOON M
NNOO 10
fJ} f.FH:I3- a)
'"
~
6
o
00
N
N
&>
i85 i?:5;:: ~"":;J:
(OQ)CO (")
tfltflN' c0
'" '"
&>
~
..J
-
<(
I-
W
C
2f?
o
~
@)
c
o '"
c t t)
OJ 0 0
'w o...u
Q) .ill Q)
-0",
0)""'" "(j) :s
.S ~ 5 t)
ID U Q) 2
w........u,.....
s: E C ~
O'l L.. cu >-
C Q) .S c
WQ..LL_
--'
<{
f-
a
f-
Or--OOlr--
DecDa <0
onCD (f')
oc.O~tri" en
8[;5Ng ~
co-a) ~ r---:
...-fF:t (f7 N
'" '"
Q) ~ ~ ~ ~j!iU!l
>IDU~U::
~>Q)+=,...J
Q) ...... 'c <(
-o,?U5Q)!--
2~tl=OEO
--'D- <{f-
ooodO
~tg_g"~q~
otDa Ll)
C")f'-lD 0
&'3-u:>-<o 0
&> .
,...
...
L() NC0 "717
ocot--1.::'::lr-
~NNcqLO
U} En N-tAj M
'" <f>
'"
Q)
""0
:tJ
OJ
0-
:J
-'"
(;
:;
-0
- co
(J) ~ w e
~:.J ~ Q)
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ :s c
CJ)I-I-w
--'
<{
f-
a
f-
~om~mo<:)
ot-- 1"-00
t--~ ("')_00_
-N I'--l()
r-N Nr"N
.. ff'}- (f) f:h f:fl Y7
~~~~
Q)(!)(!)
OJ 00 00
CONN
Qj
>
<{
OJ
C
'C
Q)
Q)
c
'm (/J
c V;
W 0
""0 ",0
C ~ '"
ro E'5 ffi 13
~lfiIDU)u..8
::J Q) 0.... (ij 0>0
U u.. Ole.s:......
~ 1:5 .~ I- g gs
..crou.6ml...
() n.:= c Q)
~~~~U::E
!ON...
mmm
... <f> ""
~O~N
~ ~ ~
000
NNN
. ~
o
N
!
OOOOOOO~o
gg~g8gg 0
oo-r--..-l.()-otrir--- ~
LOlO.,.-f::/70MY7 0
C'?f:fl(f7..--f::/7 0
&> "" <0
...
LOr--
r-oe_N-
--'
<{
W "'f-
it rn E a
.g,g-iB ~r-
+ x Q)..c L...
~~ oU).3 ~
::J-02>06m(l)~
~+O..cQ)4-arU1
.o--l" "5'c""O
::Jgomi:c.~~
UD-f-aJowU)-l
06'
roro
lJ" .::1
(1)roO-
U::-"(1)
C
(c~ 3
UJ",,"~
O' L--
-NO
'"'0
o----"co
--Jo:J-'"
<(Of'--
ro~O
,0"'-
0(">1---
Z '
Eo -'
,,~('")
.. "
-.0 "
"'EO)
'0,,'"
~uCL
0'"
<(0
f'--
'"
~
N
N
~
I
oq-C"')'<:tocoa~o>~
l.!)("')O<.DCOCO NO
.q:""':Nr.ONO t.cir--.:
'l'""tOCO(])<DO '"t'LO
O>LOtOMl""'m r---C,O
t.ri"N~N"':~ N"M
C"1f"-.,C")f'-..NN """''1'""
NO>
I
IIII~II'"
r-I-I-I-Jgl-I-~(J'l
""0"0"0"0 "'C"'Oro~
~~~~2:'Q)Q)U~
C)()o(.)o.:z:..'::I:..~o)
19.e.s.i9tn~~G...9
(j)U)CI)U)..-U5U5mc:
1:-1:-1:- 1:- a; 1:-1:-2 ,Q
oooocooro~
v.;t.i.t)1i) 01i.lw0 ~
NNNC\lONNl-g
U
i
LLLLU.U.LLLLU.
CJ)CfJ(j)Cf)(/)(j)(f)
c.oOlJ:lf'-(I")Q)O
1.000,-ONCOI'--
o.'I'""_,,!'"'!.C"l_C'?o.
..-- 'I'"" '!"'"" '1'""...- '1'""'1'""
J
0::0::0::0::0::0::0::
rnmm[QaJ[QOJ
C\lC'1C"')C'1(1")C"')C\!
~
~
I'
0,-0 C) 0 o.....o~,o
CF- 0..... '2f'. CF- CF- 0..... 0 0.....
l.{)t--,...<.Or-t-- 0
..-N..-N 0
~
"<t" r-coo CD to (QO'J
C"1<ONc.oT'"""--~N
N
I
ro
<(tQUOWLLC):8
='=~:!::::<'::::::t::!::::!:::..o
c: c: c: c: c c: C ::J
::>::>:J::J:J:J:JCIJ
OOl;OlO>
Oli) 1.01.0
<rilO oiN
LOCO ,....co
COf'.. o:::tN
ri"': NO
NN LOCO
tSt5:=:ro'"
~~5~E
o 0 I.. co 0)
-::<DEc.Jo
""~ -,,~
t)Oo<;t,c
EEoa;.2
"O"'O-gz~
Q) Q)..,::t:: - Q)
~...::t::Oro>
o~l9156
~m(j)l-()
~
o
00
~
~
~
Ol
~
LLLLLL
VI en en
N"'o>
00"'0>
"'Ol~
~
a:: 0::0::
tQtQtQ
NO>O>
,0 ,0 ~ ,0
0"0......00....
OlO 0
.,..,. 0
~
COMc.QI"--
NN 00
"
'"
'"
~
"
>
ro
.0
:J
en
ro
zoo..'3
:!::::t:::::t::::..o
c C C ::J
::J:J::lU)
~
o
00
~
~
o
N
Ol
"
'"
~
"
>
'"
.0
:J
rn
N
'"
..
"'
~
ui
N
'"
f'--
0>
~
'"
'"
N
.l:3
'i"
:::J
ro
"0
f-
.,~._,..-,..-----_..-
"''''
- -
o 0
~~
,EE
~~
'" '"
~ ~
o 0
LLLL
JOO'"
"'N
NO>
N'o::t
"'0>
OOOl
rO~
."."
100'"
, '" N
NN
cO (Dh
Nf'--
N~
."."
1:i' Ol ro
~NN
~"'!"'!
'" '"
NN
J~~
o 0
00
. ~ ~
o
!OlOl
a'"
~'"
c.o-N"
<000
."."
1<f2.~
00
00
~'"
JOOiO
00 0
00 0
00 Lri'
00'" '"
OlCl .,.
,..:,..: ~
."." ."
JOOjOl
. 0 a f"-
00 ~
cia.6 0
. 1.0 co to
~ ~ ~
." .. ."
Ij"''''O>
. r-. ,...... co
~ ~ ~
."."."
~O>N"''''
~~~ N
JOOjO
00 0
00 0
60 0
OON 00
f'--'" '"
,..:,..: ri
."." ."
100jOl
. 00 LO
00 f'--
L6 lif N
. N CI") C")
~ ~ ~
."." ."
jf'--O>~
.,."''''
~ ~~
."."."
~"'NO":lOl
~~~ N
~~*~
~
!1il1il:g
I;j:::l;:::o
0::0::"
tQtQa::
No>tQ
0>
I~~:;;~
cecO
:C>:::J:::Jf-
en
f-
Z
:::J
Q.
<{
C)
oil
W
U
0::
a
LL
><::
0::
a
:;:
LL
a
rn
w
--'
<{
en
,,2
",a
",0::
a;LL
J:~
a
U
z
--'
<{
f-
a
f-
o
o
o
ui
'"
'"
cO
...
Ii
~
j~
~2
~
'c
:::J
ro
'0
!~
o
U
I'-0>I'-0)0)"1~
j,-C0(.OCO'l"'""-.::r '<:t
<.OO.,.....~(f),- .,....~
....... ~...... .. ...,.
Vr.o"'(f)CT.IN 0)
<OaOaOV 0
-.::t . r-... _ CO en .
-(") -(") .. (j)
<O,-LO.....C'1("'j ...,.
f:l'T&7(fl~f:lTY7 Y}
~,,~coococo"'~
~(,,)CONtO'-'-.....-iN
CO"'I'-O"'''I'''
("')-,-C"")C!':lCOCQ CO
..-...-(")...-0("') M
.~o~crir-:a5rD ~
~Q)..-..-..-C'1-.::t ,-
...-NNNNN N
~(flWWb9-Ef) (fl
,gjooooooo
0.. COCOCOOClOJroCO
"..-,-,-,-..-..-,-
~ _ ffl-WY')-EF.HflthU')-
o
'"
O>CO~"''''O!O)
jO)r.oCO<OO>N C"')
...,. M.l.O o./'-. I'-- "l
-"'1' -0) -. -.::t
tOl.ONOOlN 0
f'-Q).....cn..-N 0
CO .1'- _ CO 0 _
- cn . (j) . - l.O
m""-COr-lOlO f'-.
(I'lf;A-(flEA-U7f:!7- l:fl
~-.::t"-COO<OID<D:~
~("')(DNC.D...-..-'riN
"'~O>o)I'-O~'"
~roNo)T"""C"')N C")
'<::t....-. O. CO. t--. """. l.[).
. Ol'-LO,-C"')(Q r-...
cnNC"')MCOr-- N
NC"')C"')M(f)C"') C"')
W-W-W-W(fl(fl W
.g ~I.{) t[) t.O LO 1.O l.O l()
0.. t'-r--r--r--r--l'-t--
NNNNNNN
~~E:f)-(fl(flEA-EflER-b9-
o
N
iCOOO>I'-"'O>O
l.!)m......ONCOf'-.
O........N.N..C'1.M.O.
,- .,.... ..- ...- ,- ...- T"""
!"'''''''''''''''''''
(9
>
<>:
i;:;~;;~~~~~
c:cccc:ccQ
::J:J:J:):J=:>::')I-
r----------,
I "CO 0> 0) '" "1"'1
j"OCO~CO'" 0
1 C"') '""'. ro N. ...,. T'"' v.1
- en -...... - -
1 oO)co",I'-I'-;;;1
<DCOCO(o<OC'1 r--
IN. cD C'{ cD ~ o. 0i1
co I'-- o;tlC)
I (fl ~ fA ~ (fl fA- ~I
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
I~ ~ 0>1
10 "~CO 0 co co "''''I
N MI'.ON(O........-.....;N
I'g I
10 I
Ql
1'5' I
IQ: I
I 1
I ~"'"OCO,,;<DI
I ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~I
I ~ N ri a ,.: ",",;i. ril
I ~ ~ ~ f;;j g ~ ~I
I W&7Y7W&7(;fi- wI
II'l I
I~ j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
10) ooc::icioao I
I~ MMMM(")C"')(") I
'- NNNNNNN
I~ - Efl f:R-li7fJ'Hfi(fl-f;17 I
[<{..-:;::::-:;;
o '" I"
O>JU1f'-.,CONLOM It)
o U1.<O .l!)",," .
o Ot'--~O~N en
N t'--~o~..-co 3
_"" ..-. N . co m .
'-V .(0.(0.. N
co ~..-"""...-~;l (0
o -, Ef7!:P.- <.:fl -- -- t;f-J
o
'"
~~"i",-(DO(!)(oc.Q~
Q)~C"1(oN(o'-"'-r1N
'2~
Q.
~roro"o"'~o>
~M.CD.~~o;_~. ~
. 00""'70..- 0
7""''''''''''''0''- ,.....
C'\lNNNC"1C"1 N
VlEA-b9-Y7gq.~ tA-
W
"
~'9lf:!~~~~~~
O)~,....t-..r-....r-....,....t--.J'.....
<Il~NNNNNNN
1'- NNNNNr'oJr'oJ II
Q)"tA-fhEli)-tA-ct7Wct7
>
<>:
iffi~~b~ffi~
0..,.... C'{C'{C"1. ('1'). 0_
..-..-...-..........- '1"""'''-
!"''''(')'''''''''N
(9
>
~
i;:;~;;~~~~~
cc::ccc::ccO
:J:J:J:J:J:J:Jf-
"''''0000;'''
j('l')(I')..-LONO 0
(0 Cf).l.l) "'-.. r-.... N Cf).
-0 "0) ... to
COo:;rOQ)OLO ex)
~ 'I"""'.~ o.re ~ '"':
'ex) . co .. co
CO..-t--...-lOLO CD
E/}wWct7EA-EA- EA-
~~...,.........(Oo(Ococ.o~
N (l')CONCO..-..........-jC\l
'C
.$
"
Ql
'5'
~
a..
0)"'''''''00;1'-
~r-...COC"1LOt--O 1.0
0.. (1').. CO. CO. CO. N. r-.....
. -.:t r-.......,......... 0 N t--
(00)00(1')"<1" 0)
NNC"1Cf)CI')Cf) N
W-EA-EA-W-EA-EA- W-
jOOOOOOO
oc:ioooc:io
LOlOlOl.()l()lOl!)
NNNNNNN
. foR- W- Q<7 EA- EA- tA- w-
OO>O"~"'I'"
~O>"'-())COO>O> LO
""" t'-..CO "'-_0"'- CIC!.
.. oo::t . l!) .. eo
Q').,-C'0r--.Ol(o LO
~"'-oo::tOCl')f'-..lO o:t
(0 _(0 .00.1 ..
'I"""" c:Ot'-~"""LOLei 10
~ ~ CD
...... ~fff~-<9-tA-W~ -.y}-
o
'"
'C
tJ~oo::t...-(Oo(O<o<o~
.~ CI')<ON<O...-........r1N
o
~
a..
"I'-O<D"''''il'-
~...-roU)a)o::t..- """
lOv'<:tLO"'1"lO co
. (Y}lO-Nmr---.cr5 Lei
lOCOOlCO...-N co
NNNNCI')CI') N
b'7tA-EfltA-tA-tA- Efl
jOOOOOOO
0666666
""",,,,"'<:j''<::tvv~
N C\j ("'oJ (";,I ("'\I N N
.. WEf}-EflWtA-Wb9-
jCOOO>I'-"'O>O
l()Q')..-ONCOt--
o_,""""_C'{t:"\!.<"lC"1.o.
..........-..-........,........- ..-
!N "'''''''''' "''''
ol!;
mm
-0";0
",mD-
or -., '"
,tf
L~3
~""
O' Z
-NO
",,0'
0.....>.(0
-..0J>
(9
>
~
i;:;~;;~~~~o~
c c c c c c c::
:J:J::l:J:J:J:J1-
<(0 r.......
co~CO
,0 "T
0101-,<-
Z '
E
.ill iV'')
- -',,"
(l)EOl
DQJ'"
a3Uo..
OlQJ
<(0
r--
C<
~
N
N
~
7oo;r--
Q) co co
77 '"
L6cr5 en
Q) CO CO
00 '" '"
...--~ r--:
N'" N
'" Ef>
~
'c
::J
~
III
on
on
0
---'
co
00
7
III qj
~
'" "T
.r::: ~
on
(L
<(
C9
Li:
S
C
o
""
o
LL 0. (f) (f) lD
. ......: en U) <.>
rr~coo.c
(/)CIIlOOo. (L
o:~"O"C~ ct:
;:g;,lIlrornCii ~~C9
I... <nOCXICI)
w_ ____
0.00-0000
I'-~#~~~
COOOLOOc.o
00- _ N ...-
N
r--
Ef>
!~
'"
00007;00
COLOO-.:;t C"')
-.::tl'-LO-.:t cry
cO M~ N N O~
COO'>~LO ~
Moo..q..q ("")
~tI7fi7t:R- W-
Ef>
~.,
~~~~
~
I OJ ~ [;:j~ 0 o<nOOJOO;NN !~ <n '" '"
N 0 COOONLD 1'-1'- 0 0
N N 0 LO_~~"'!.."'1"~ ~CI) CO CO Q)
<ii '" N
:;J:LOI'-N'<::t "'1"cri
'" O'<::tCDN OJ".j-
'" N~("1NLO O'>eo
CO t!)-~-00-fF7 f:fl ci-
Ef> Y}-fF)' ~N
Ef>~
j
o;~~
~r--01
,.-- ('1')-
~
~
~
<nCO~<n
7<n ~
r--r-- Q)
N- ('1')- 05
r-- ~ '"
N '"
Ul
o
D
C
o
280
.c "'0 0..
::J~<(
on 0 C9
~ ro ~
0.- Q)
co ~ u
~ III ~
lDE.2<t
-cE-r.:1-
~8~~
on
III
.2!
t) on
(1)- Q) en
(11 U) C 0
cat) 5 0
U) 0 () 0>
_oc U c
'gg~ ~ *~tn
EN::J E oo~~
o~-br.n.- U06~~
....CI)oo(j)W(f) 0
.......Q)coO'......O)O) 0
Q)(,)ou......;~cc-..J
E<::o ()o(3~<i:~
o(1)u"Ccu c::c:-r;:
Q.l...lDo..t::ct]I...19o
~Jj~~E~rr:~~a:
~on
;-'c~ 8 :B en
cu-1i)
::J 0.--0
m en go
.e Q) ~ B>
EO) 2~8-c
on~ '"
E oc",:;;:
() 0 C
8 "O:pCUo(:S
'+- 0) o:!:::" . r.n
o .E.5E~1i)
~ u; 3: U) w C 8
.C Q) Q) 5 0. ~
Q.Ul cO.......lL.-~
(f) C _ U .....
_Q) Q) 0-0 ro -m.-
0. 0 ~ o.-t:::...... '0
~Lrl~~5~~ct
)i
Ol
'""
<FT
~~
ij&>
i
~
)i
'"
f"--
<FT
!!
~i>l
,""~OlCO"';"',""
mCOC"1NLO CO">t
"<:tI.()MCCN 0>0:>
Lti N~ 0- ~- cri r.c- N-
mmCOLOQ COO)
COOCONlO Den
r-- l.() ,.....- ....- N- ...-- ......~
NNEA-f:tlW. (0..--
f'fi(:J7 EA-~
a
co
&>
,""~(J)<DO;f"--N
cnOMCOt'- (1")0
..q-t'-MNI.() <DC"?
t.O l()- 0- CO- qj <6 ca-
mCDCOCO('") mo
COMCOlO,.-- I.()":;t
..---.......-r---~ M- m-LO-
NMEA-WU) COY')
<FT<FT <n
a
a
~
<n
?f. ~!2. '<f2.
<DO'"
~
'" ~
2 .:h Q) f.1).-
'c CT~ U)~
:J ~t5 8m
ro Q) ~2u(f)
.~ (j)D.Cf.1)mo'2.
OJ U)'tf'J-oO.c-
E 0 C) 0 " Ol
E 0 c "0 "E ~.!;
o u 0 c (U (/)
(.) Q):o::J CO..c 2 0
'+- .~u:=:of.1)O(JJ
o 4-:JE~o ........
<I,)..3=~~-UoO~
()(/)C1)cQ)20'l0)t)
.;:: Q) C 0 a. f.1) c C _
o.~oU1i8'o:a>m
f.1) Q) "0 ro C .::r:. - ........
i!? n.rf? '- o..~ ~ (51'915
~illg~~~U:2~0::
Q)
,2:
rn
Q)
z
)~
co
'"
<FT
u
)i
'"
'"
<FT
)i
N
'"
<n
""
o
f"--
~;.
. '"
-0
~~
<n
"'<DOlN"'IOf"--~
"''""'''N,"" "''""'"
M'""':.~cq,c.o_ q"!.~
m<OONlO atet'-
<O:;f'I.()CO'<;f"CO r---..--fi7
u) co_ co_ """_ co_ C"?_ cq,
cnCOf'-......N COr-
CONEA-EA-~ COb'7
"",:w ER-
N
<FT
N 'rf!.cJ.cf.
Q) LOOI.()
<FT ~
,""~Ol,""f"--If"--COf"--
o}f'-Ml[)O O~I,{)
o::;tOMC")t--.. mO>N
u),.....-o-,.....-~ """-0 co-
O'l'<;tCONI.{) f'-..COT"""
CClLOCClC\lv N..--EA-
..---~r__:~N ~o::;t-
NNEA-EA-EA- (O{;f)-
<n<FT <FT
a
Ol
<n
2f?-;f!.?f.
"'a <D
",,-
o
'"
,""~Olf"--"';~;=-f"--
Q')C"")C0L()..-- ..--r---r--
o::;t..-M"'t(J') CONM
r.Oo>o..,....-N' ..--N"'t"
mC'\lOO..--N 701,.
CONCO-.:::tCO MNEA-
..---CO-~"':N l{)0-
NNY7EA-EA- CO!i7
WfFj- w-
ON cf2,;f!.'Q[2.
mr-L()Ol.()
EA-"<T_ ..--
'""
'"
(f}
'" ~
2 OJ (/J---
'e __ .E2 U) ~ f.1)
:J .t::....... 0 - Q)
-ro cr uQ) __ () r~ .g
'" c ~ D V.I 0.
'0 ~ l- 0
2U:iCUJco;::'::: f.1)
CD f.1) - 0 O..c -- Q.)
E o~()UoO) ro:
E uc"C"CO-:::c en
o "'Oocro-"oo 4-
U ~7jro..c2..Q 0
15 4=::JE~20.8c
a.>_.3:~'--CJ~C/J~
_!:2U)Q)~Q)110>0>81-
l-Q)coO"C/Jcc_Q)......
c. '" _ 0..... 0"- '.;:::l - 0.--
co OOuQ)rn-c
tnQ) -cro C~-"""::J
~o.cf.rnO'~~ro19~-
ro >< a E 0 ._ 00::::: 0 I- rn
Cf)WcoI_(I) L1....:::::: 1-D..f:.9.
~2
a"
co c
@)8
2m
'- c
S .Q
-ern rn.-.
ro (1) Q) Q) C/J
f5 > en rJ) rJ)
,-ca5 ~.3
cae... 0.._
Q) CJ X Q) >< I-
>-OW ::oW 0
c ~ro-~
o Q.) en tD.- ro 4=
o rn C/J .~ rn 15 e
'ltr.fJ~u.>f--a..
"~ ~
~
c.
0;
"'"
~
ro
E
rn
"
""6
i~
c
ro
U
rn
,s
2
f"--~
"c ."..co 0
::J ~'"
'"
'"
'""
'"
'"
<FT
(ij
c
~~
Q)
>
c
o
u
Q)
,s
>,
c
o
Q)
~~
Q)
E
:;:
o
Qi
.a
'"
~
Q)
.a
~~
Q)
.r::
f--
'--
B
5 0
-
o
~ ,
Q)
.a
E
::J
C
-J
~
o
f--
Q)
,s
Q)
~
ro
:;:
o
Qi
.a
'"
~
Q)
.a
E
::J
C
Q)
.r::
f--
a",
~;J:
tti
'"
f"--
tti
'""
<FT
gs",
~~
Ol
m
o
'"
N
'"
<FT
"'a
~'"
NCO
N
'""
f"--
Ol",
N",
Nco
05
'"
'""
",'
'"
<FT
'""!'""Ci)
Ol ~'"
'"" ,""Ol
l!)- ,.....~ ....:
Ol Ol'"
co OlN
....- Ol()-
N "'<FT
<FT <FT~
'""I"'Q
Ol ~O
'"" COOl
Lri" 60
Ol COf"--
co ~co
....- LON-
N "'<FT
<FT <FT-
'""I"'N
Ol "''''
'"" "'a
LO ecr t6
Ol O<D
co OJ'""
<r-~ 1.6 N~
N "'<FT
<FT <FT-
~
'"
<FT
'"" ~ "', '"
Ol co'"
'"" Of"--
1.(')- M~ c)
Ol co'"
co ~'"
....- ~~
N '"
'" '"
'""If"--oo
Ol a'""
'"" 0l0l
l!)- """-0
Ol f"--CO
co N~
r-- ....: -<:t-
N '" <n
<FT <n
a
'"
N
<FT
f"--
co
""
~
co
~
<FT
0)>
ro'fE
-oC);:!
Qlroc.
(r::::i ill
D
,- ~3
w""
0'" Z
-",0
""0
0~(X>
--.lap
<(or-
co~O
0'1"
o r-..~" ~
Z
E -'
(\J~",
_(\J
-nCLl
m.-cn
-0 (\Je m
c 0-
(\J"
O,Q)
<(0
r-
~
~
N
N
~
Q):;::;'
u e
~ 0>
o E
LLa.
'"" 0
aU;
5: iii
,.,0
.oOl
"tJ .f::
0> Ul
- ::J
i',l 0
O>I
Co.
~<(
Ul~
Ul-o
o e
2m
!!l
'"
::J
0.
<(
~
""
0>
U
~
o
LL
-'"
~
C
o
o
co
...
'"
...
"'"
~
'"
::J
~
Q)
~~-
r-
"'"
Ul
U)
o
---'
ij~
co
~
'""
N
r-
'"
Ol
...
CD.
N
~
;::::-
'~ ~
;~
i~
~
."
::J
-
'"
o
~
0.
cu
C
,2
C
(\J
>
e
o
o
-0
Q)
,~
ii
ro
(J)
-ci
'"
-0
'S;
o
~
c.
g
'ijj
.0
Ul
-
'2
"
(J)
"
c
o
.0
....
<t
~
C
o
'"
~
'"
'"
...
'"
.c
I-
'<t
M
M
agt'--<t--..~lD
coo:::to:::tCf') I'--
~ ~o::>co ~""=t
~ ~~~ 1.6
T""_~:; c.o_~
ffi-q--",,"-~~
wffltA-__E:t7
~ ~~~~~
0' ~cno>M_U')
a.... ~ co ci 0-0)""':
Nl!)COCO~C'1
C1l "'f_ T"" ~ c.o~ LO
~ U')~~KN""':
l: ~fflffl~E:t7
W
o Nt::"
lDl..O 1'--0
COIDQ)C"1CD
~NJ"-.._ C 0->0)-
"'1'cno-:;:rco
......l.OZ<DO
---~ N-0J
(O'<TT f::P.T~
"'" --
--N' N~
0(0 t--.C0
"'00>"''''
~""Lri"C::cD-.:i
l.()l{)O'<:'j"Q
"':t""'::!"z<.o........
M-r-J ('\/-1.6
L()b9- ffifi7
W -- ---
'"
'<t
~
-- LOa NN
(/) ........0 I"-/'-
en O'>mQ)C"JN
o~oia-cmo
(j Of'-...O~N
'U C'1COZC01..O
S NN- Nl6
\U LOEt7 f::P.TQ9-
fJ) w- ---
(\J
,"
0.
'"
>
~
'"
Z
~ l.()Q) N:;:--
o '<:tea 1'-7
N ~Q)Q)(")('f)
C ~I..()..,.- c 0)....-
O?\iC"')<.QO..q,-
"0 I'-:C'{ZCD_O'J_
OJ LOl() Nt-
(/) 76'7 b'7t13-
cu &7- ----
m
C
'"
>
'"
'""
'"
'"
...
.0
o
-
(J)
-
'2
"
(J)
"
c
o
.0
...
'"
.0
E
"
z
0.
<(0.
~<(
LL~
5:_
U)~ 0>
:go~
:Jmtf
ro.Q~
5 tt: 0 ~
",05:-"
c >. _
Q) co E ro
(/) > 0. 0 l-
U C 0 ~ Q.l
Q.)O__4->
OJ U c:: c 0
Q 0 Q) 0>
(/)oE:z""'Oc
~ I- 0 ~ :s .c
co.. J::..c ...... >_
:J .- ......... ro
gs a::.;:. en E
O(ije6~Q)
'lloooo.O---,o::
~
co;'"
M ~
M -
- '"
o N
~ ....
M -
"'" '<t
'""
~
CO!CD
M co
M N.
o en
~ '<t
M -
"'" '<t
"'"
~
CO;M
M 0
M ~
o ci
~ r-
M co
"'" "'"
~
col~
M r-
'" -
, '<t
o ...
~ ~
'" -
"'" N
~
~
CO!a~
'" '"
'" -
. 0
o CD
~ '"
('1) N N-
"'" ~
~
I~
~
co '"
'" CD
C"')_...-~
o '"
~ ",
'" -
"'" ;%
Vi'
u;
o
U
-0 ,
c,
ro
Ul
Q),
U
'C
a.
0.
<(
~~
o _
aLL
::;5:
c~od
Q)C-
co'"
o c. 5
c...E~
E 0 c
000>
o_~
m ~ 0
.00(,)
Q;~~
E Q) 0
E>'
C.o
o 0 ::J
000)
~
~
o
N'
C
o
-0
Q)
Ul
ro
f!!.
N
....
'"
oi
...
CD
N
~
N
....
'"
oi
...
CD
N
~
~
'"
",
oi
o
'"
N
~
o
r-
'"
....
co
N
~
o
",
0_
co
'"
~
N
~
0)
o
N
oi
'"
co
~
~
~
o
N
C
(\J
C
o
"-
E
o
o
0.
<(
~
""
Q)
u
~
o
LL
-'"
o
5:
I-------j
I i! ~ I
I ~"'_ "!.~I
1::1 Z '<t 0 CDI
<(LLZN aell
ILL 0 0;;. ;6....1
1000 N '"" '"" I
1~8fi:
,:il -' <(
WZ
ILLo I 0 ~
1--0
10 I- g; c<i
IZW---, ;;;
::) 0) 0 .
Iittt~~
10:: Ow
1<( 0 Q
Iw I- > _~ I
-'00'" ~
I~ w 0:: ~ ~ ~I
100 u:: 0. N c<i NI
(I)-OJ'-... Mer')
I~ ti I- O. '<to NI
II- ;; ffi ~ ;;; I
11m ~ [E II
:2:00
Its :5 ~ 0 Si alii
lill 0 0:: ~ co ,2':
I> 5: w c<i ~ ro I
Iw I- 0. '" CD_ al'1
O_OCD, Z
(0) Z ---' N ;;; I
_ ::) w "'"
It: 0:: GJ ~ I
I~ g: 0 I
1<( 0 ~ ~ I
1:2: 0,... CD ..
or-a "7 wi
Ig ci >- r- 0> ,2': I
:J~m(,6 a-~I
10 I- 0 1il ~ (\J
15: ::) ~ N N zl
II- 00::"'" ~ I
1~~8 I
II- LL m I
wO<(
0> 10:: W W '" 0) I
'" ! I::) I- m CD :;; g; I
co I- <( ~ co ,_
~ 1m ffJ U) ~ ~ :g,1
co I> 0:: ~ "!. "'. 0> I
~ I~!;:;:I-~ ;%ZI
II- I ::>; I
10 I- ~ I
I~@~ ~ I
It:o::::) 0 I
I'" 5 0 cE I
mo:2: ~
I~ ~ <( 0 iGl
1-~1- ""cuI
LLW<(U) Den
I~m~.lli ~ :!lll
10. g 0) U I- e
IW::) W CIl :i: Oll
I~ ~ ~ _~ 1-.81
>r- OeE:
I~ 00 '" vi W 0 I
1<( tlJ ~ ~ (3 0.1
0:: ~ 0:: ~I
I~::~'(ij o..l'll
Iw 0 W 2 -' c
I~ cE 0::: 1l ~ ~I
10:2:0 al 00>1
.I~.;=-~~_ .t;;.!l;,
'"
~
CO
on
r-
o
N
'""
'<t
~
q
0> I
~~I
",~I
CO "'I
0....
on I
"'" I
~
...
co_
~
"'"
0>
N
CO
",-
'"
"C
~
~
~
",
N
,,;
N
'"
'"
~
N
'"
CD
cO
0>
CD
'"
~
I-
o
W
--,
o
0::
0.
W
0::
f=
Z
W
-'
;:':
o
I-
12.21,07
Analysis of Individual Unit Types (Stabilized year 2011)
Unencumbered Workforce & GAP
Item Market Units fiLX Encumbered Units $'s/X
Avg, Sq,Ft ~ 1.ru. m
Sales Price in 2011 $285,847 $2401 sq ft $146,228 $159
Expenses:
Hard Construction $107,192 $901 sq ft $92,010 $871 sq ft
impact, permit fees $34,412 $6,098
Soft Costs $5,360 5% Hard $4,601 5% Hard
Financing Costs $10,719 10% Hard $9,201 10% Hard
<( 0 f'- Marketing & Closing $14 292 6% Sales .$8.lli 6% Hard
a)-:--D Sub-Total Variable Costs $171,976 $120,684
.O~
ON_
Z - 0
-..,. $113,871 $25,544
E ~:g Net Before Fixed & Profit
.i~ ill (') Share of Fixed Costs $95 614 $72 075
-..QCO $18,257 ($46,480)
(I} E C)) Profit
T.J CD en
CuD-
:]) (1) lliun # Total Units Madill Workforce & GAP
;tlC) Tota/ all units requested 286 229 57
Base - no bonus units Zl'l ill !11
Units generated by bonus 52 42 10
Profit or loss per unit $18,257 ($46,480)
Tota/ financial impact $302,009 $766,811 ($464,802)
Tot. # Workforce & GAP units
Loss per unit
Total/ass generated by WF & GAP units
57 total all WF & GAP
L$1M8.Ql
($2,649,372)
Net Gain from density bonus
($2,649,372)
Contribution from 89...s_~
$'sl unit
# base units
Total Contribution
$18.257
23!l
$4,272,235
Total all profit using all units
$1,622,863 (This is the entire profit for the project in 2011)
lNOte: with,; profitperur,1!oforiiy$18,257, "the "densrry"bon"us..viii notgeiie"rat; enough market rate liniiS"to -" -" -. -. -"I
jpay for the loss of $45,880 per unit on the Workforce and GAP units, Because the the only way that enough i
.profit can be generated by the units that are part of the base calculation in a future (2011) stabilized market. .
~---_._._.-._._._.-._._._._._._._._._._._--._._._----------------..
SUMMARY
Residential Units
Base Market Units
WF & GAP Units
Bonus Market Units
TOTAL ALL UNITS
179
57
QQ
286
ProfiULoss per Unit
$18,257
($46,480 )
$18,257
Total ProfiU Loss
$3,268,077
($2,649,372)
$912,871
$1,531,576
.
(,(\ f\ ('C '\
_.1 j rh) I ;-d_
r-I'J(' I NF'r-I"'II\ j('
,:,: \. .,"1 ~.: ,.','. -'I I \ '_J
CO!\JSUl.:rf\I'J'l ~;
'"'JC'
II, )
':c_~_~_I--'_;_~(;UJ?j~s.~~~_'_
(.,....il 1:llqin<-l',ill~.l
1'lcllll:n~J Sel \1'(;2\
\"I'.'e,' 3. Hnppin(J
1~IXr;I(]1 En'Jil)(:!:'li'lq
f,':,-Ol c,tnl0 :)(;r'/i((;;
/\ ern GROiJr' ( (:i\.'IPAU)'
','>'(-I:,',.ile ''','.. C.( J\I~dcf"':;Jin'oclin;J_r_/)ln
July 21, 2010
Ms, Kay Deselem, AlCP
Principal Planner
Collier County Government
Zoning and Land Development Review Department
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
2800 N, Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RE: l'UDZ-20U4-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE, cepc CONCERNS
(CIc'C File No. 02,204)
Dear lVIs, Deselem:
The J(lllowing comments arc in response to concerns raised by the Collier County Plmming
COlllmission (CCPC) during thc May 7, 2009 hearing, We have listed each concern raised by the
CCPC followed by our responses ill hold,
Master Plan docs not shm:v enougb detail, show building and park locations.
neC Responsc2
We have revised the M aster Plan and increased the level of detail by depicting items such
as buildinf~ footprints, parking, sidewall", roads, plaza, and park areas,
Density.
CEC Response:
We have reduced the proposed density from 28G to 234 units,
Deviation 011 parking rcC]UirellJel1ts
!;:EC Resllonse,
We have removed all deviation requests,
Tile butler all the south end uf tile properly between church and site needs [0 he increased.
eEC Res!lonse:
\Ve increased this huffer area frolll a \0' Type "A" to a 15' Type "B" buffer,
Park location is not shoWll Oil the I\ililster Pbll
CEC Response:
We have depided the parI< locations on the revised Master Plan,
C-\IJ(!,:l'iIWlll1 ;",d "e[lil,~\',r"ndrca',l)(\k\UI"..{12:0.1 '\l.'ri1 C{l]O !lc_SII~'r"ill"I\()',:II~ (',pc cnr'cern,"OI007'1 ,Ii'le
Page I 0[2
l' (
'.:'.ii;,
. ',~il illl<. (I ,~",-'(iIICI\I"
<(Of'-.
ro~o
,0,,"
0("1---
Z .0
"'=tOO
E~o
Q)~(")
-Q)
-.Q Q)
mE 0)
DQ)C1l
~oll
O'JQ)
<CO
cepe Concerns
RE: DAVIS RESERVE, PUD-2004-AR-6B29
July 20, 2010
COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC,
Need to include an exhibit for the church easement.
CEC Rcsponse:
We have ineludcd an cxhibit that dcsnibes thc access easement and have rccorded thc
cxecuted acccss eascment in County Rccords (OR 4570 PG 1102),
Please show worst case scenario in the TIS for supermarket.
CEC Rcsponsc:
Wc have provided as supplemental analysis to thc TIS rcporting the worst case
sccnario including supcrmarkct.
Davis Boulevard Right In - Right Gut should be moved 660' from intersection,
CEC Rcsponse:
We havc rcviscd thc Mastcr Plan to show the Davis Boulevard Right In - Right Out 660'
from the intcrscction,
Provide a fully exccuted, recorded access easement.
CEC ResPonsc:
W c havc providcd a fully cxccutcd and recordcd access easemcnt. Thc casement is
recorded in OR 4121 PG 0945,
Development standards table, Ihe setbacks nced to be more than 0',
CEC Responsc:
We have rcviscd the development standards tablc and increased the minimum setbacks.
I\1in:mum rear yard setbJck should be at ]C(,st 5',
CEC Response:
We have revised the dcvelopment standards table and increascd the rcar yard setback to
5',
Beller define commercial uses as allowed in C-l, C-2, & C-3,
CEC Rcsllonsc:
We have revised the Ml'UD doeumcnt to include specific pCl'mitted uses with SIC codes.
Minirnlll11 distance bet\V'CCll buildings, the standard is h the building height.
CEC Resf)onsc:
We have revised the dcvclopment standards table and increased thc minimum distance
between buildings to Yz thc building hcight.
We trust wc bave addressed all concerns adequately, Should you need any additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (239) 643-2324 ex!. 134 or ranclrcw({icccjl1,coll1,
Sincerely,
COASTAL ~~N~;INEERING C()NSlJLTANTS, INC.
Robert Andrea
Planning Consultant
C:\Docu",el\l< ""d Sellitl,,<\r~ndrc.1\l)""~IC\p',01~04 April :010 Re-Sllb",ill"llfJnO.1 cepe coilcerm20100721 ,.Ill'
Page 2 of 2
'-
o
~
~
,
.~
\
~
"
~ I
I ~ i
, \ '
:___~t I
E-- ~
Z"il I I
~... I ,i -----r--
..... :: I
~ ~ ~ ,~I - I !
~ 0 .:!l 01 M ~ I '"'\
~tjl ~~:~ ' :~
~ ~ ~ c II ~ I l I II ' I
:::J @ ~ j ~ 1'1.1' .~ I !--.j " '~
~ j ~ ~ ~ 1 00 I! ~ ~.- ,:~~--II I---II--~
~ ~~~f;3I~ ~ ,~ i ~ !
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~! ti t ~ I '..' & i ~ I ~
[fJ0 , ~ -e ~ Ii I~, ~,I ~,~ ~, I I
"l ~ " ":l" \" ,\J'
;r: [/] ~ I_L \'\".:. '~I ,I
~ ~ ~ .. !T 1-:- I U -j
G~~' 1'3: I! 'I i 1'-- ,~
,,' " ''</\
;3 ~ ~i : c.! ~~
I~I I c8ll~'-J
I II ~! i I,~ II -~I-'~Il ~~,I'~ \:)
I - I ,~'" i 51 : ~J I ~J'. I I
:i:: , ,; I ~'" '\l I " ~
'!'~'_ 'i.1~'-J- \1 \c~
jr:;1 rei I ~ ! ,(I J I ,?l -+ ^ l;;;'-~
,,";, ~\ I r, ' J !, I) <, ,\.::::c!
II ill r\~ i ~ [I ~i I" !' I'" ~I \{ .~~~
I , ;;-1 ,i; ~I;:;:;c Ie; I " ---2:;, bi
, , _ "'- . I I;J( ) ~.I'
11(,+,l"lIlji~ tJ..j 1"-.. '"
1",1, (12,6 ,I:;~ I .~ ( <\J I ,:i J.H~~ < ~
i-I"" I" ! -, I i> I,' .'" .5 I\~ ~
I ..,~' .J 'i~~I'-~-' I.-=--I I \""1 I A ''<;. !0:0'
_~ 17 I "1-- ""
___~~_.~_ !'--o . ,-' "
______ _----.e.!:.:....----L cd .
-~
<( 0 1'_
o;)~o
o~::
z ,0
E::! en
Q)>-?5
::--0
~.a (j)
'(JEOJ
c ru m
ill uO-
01(1)
<(0
I~
I '
I I
..Ji
~I
I'
<-l
'f---'--
-.
fl
~
'''"
t
~
,11
..Q
1:
'lI
'"
'"
\.
'"
"""
,\
'-
~
"
"
~
..
"
V
f;:
\l
..J
<:::
~ ~
10 ; !S:j
,e;,
o
"-
~
v
"'
"
, .i.
--,I ""
-~ ......
-q ~
~
\J
"
6
r ..
~)
~
~
~
~ i
~ ,\~'.~I, ~
L.) I I ~ '
; -Jt-~I ~
I Z'(
~
~
1'::- I
.'-" \:
~\j
~
..l
~
0\
,J
"-
,L.
~ :t- _ ..J)I
~ cf r-.. 'J-.,~'---'
'" ,,-;- ~ ~ J Y ~ if) ('1 ~ ~ \S'. l'- 1 ~ ;::
~ \l ~ .....'" [VI , "L -.... "', ~~ JJ \\\ \..~ 'i, '-- >--
VJ ...' ~ '" r- ,""' '" r{; t; \' c.;;; '"0 "'\ "l "
\\ ~.;; \ :-:' fVl ~ r ~ \ 10 \,., I ,\ \ \ r;', ~:'i, ~"
\ t.,:>_~. ", I <;"l,("v 111""M~ ~ J-
'" ,'" -.\, M ':>- '" ':f- '"' ;; Y:i' \S' '" \j ''J
9 S t ~ 1.,,,. v- f'- ~ ~ :3 Q 1-- ,'t\ Wi ~ if, _."- 1\-) '"
:t ~~~ N "., "\ t'-' "~ .{jJ" ,'0 \"" __
~- \,. ~ j ~ I J .~
J ~ ~ ]'~ ~~ ~~'~ J :~'~, 4 s G~ ~,l'd
-s } ~ ~I~ ~ ~ 111~ J ',~ 0J t '~y~ ~
'" J ~ ~ ,,~ "'3 3 -5i '1 ,-:; 1 ~ J, s",j ~ r:
~ '~~~ ~~ ~J1 ~i~~J i~A~ ~ ~ ~~,
~ I') ~ 1" .... I ~I m "- "0,.. 0 'y, Q ~I ..co .J ~
\l ~,R \" ::\ .-;t ::J. ".t-I ~ ~ 0 :, ~ ~ &; ~ 6', ~
c:-::"'\("i,-~,~U~'*, ,,,,,~~\:'-.,~'-'i 0, '-eN--
'-^-~ -" I
~,'""l. I J
i': . J '''~ tl, \) " \1 I . ~'<,J iJ J::""
@ ~ J ~1t \ ~ ~ ~ i::: \ \.-1 "-
<,~ ) 1\~~, "1 ~ <:::, "~JT~ ,":f, J,,~ ~ -
~ \~r\'~ ~'J ~ ~~~L"~'~ "~, i~~ ~ ~:::
J~, ~ ('~~. ~i" 7~1,,1~, J, 3.)" :~.~(~ c_l~
q .~ \16_ -0 ~'" '.J.l-=~~I_ ~-~-=:'--r~~ -'3.__=_'
",l i I! i' c:!.
~t \" \ i I ~L I \t-~'C~
L N );,' i .::~ .~ -< ""ll '-1
-"j"l !~JJ,,~~ I /::,~~..;:" ,~~ ~. ~ .
'" 1~~~~1 \t~~,~ ~ ~~ 10\ ::j' ~ l\~ l'1
~ ,0 .' a ~ c; \'1;--\' J~~ 1: . J ~,( q!.J ~I~
-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ '7 '~, ~ ):v" y' 'i
~~ \~!~ ~ ~~~lQ~ ~\-i~" --l,(~~\~ ~ /~ (S
,~ \.~ I.;! r'{~ I? -~ \'"" "'; ~ \iJ~~r~ 'l..l t~\fd~
0)>
moo
"lJ()~
",mo.
003",
mO'_
W~CD
~--J.3
O".p..z
-",0
"'"0'
o~'"
"",0)>
;;:_ o:-i t<i !_"i
1/; ~ r--:
e>6 :\ o'--~_~_6i ..j lfi -0 N
<Xi '" ~
''2:,'
J.,;:J
.~, (
----~--!.~-(--- -.
I ,j',,"
, >!v
'3
(--
c:::
~~},
'.....'
I ,\I
~Of'--
O)~O
07
O\'J,..,...
Z ,0
"T "_
E~"-
"'~M
-'"
-.0'"
GJEOl
U",'"
~uCL
,..~, (j)
.;cO
I
?'
-...)
I '~
""'-,
':g
c-
,~
~
c::;
--':21
---~i.
~p
!
~'
-,
C,-"'"
'-T- I ---'-- I
I
,
,
I ,
I
I
I
I i
I . 1
Ih
!
I
I' i
I i
--i--'.:-~-r
. 1
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
~~~
i
I
i
I----~
I
.cl
-
~~ I
12" I
~rJ
I~:'v;'l ~
\ iJ"-.. '. :--\
, . /,) fJ i ~
I' I, \
l '-J {
~ i- "'if '(I
z: I~\\ 'J'; VI.':2 ('.~
o t~\) -JI \~_:
::I:::' ,!\.rj, ~J', I 'r
~ L--D-~J-=~,
1~,.. ,Islo'" '<)
'>..~ -,;!.,~
~.l "': ~-- .)
d ~~y f ~2.-::~ q_~1
---==' :t J ."f --= '--.
~ ~,.. -'-"
~ l.ol~~~[ .~ <;<, ~i
Ilrl;~' \t ~ 1~,I~a~)l Ji I
\ "J f____ ~ G -, I
'J I <S:l rf'\ ~I
__, ,~: <^'_ '1 ~":' ''''~___~I
I'fj'<)~./ .1 I 1 I 'I
Z".I '..J - <.:,...1 ! I
6 4,.\ ?,'J.; ".' 'I tri, !.. ' 1
i: 'f?:?! '-- ,\, .::; . i
::: <;;:?I ~.:'-) I \ · i
....:l :,:;-" d.::I \ _ ,! "I
G: ,..) I,Ll '",-.1'-1
'" 01"1 '" I '",\~.J
-< ; 'Y--2J' ,~~. <~~ ~ C.l:
';::---- -..--2~ -/ ; !~-~j .~.J" I
iif" /\ -)!',J.-J:'T~"J'1 1
-1~<2 '~.....l>l>,-'--,---
I.~' -1-- I - I ! . :
'- - . I I 1 ~
(-I~I '11 fie::> ~
'j );\[' \ .~ ci
\ i I ~3' c) '~~0l
I CI<-{J_ '{j- \jj)
::: i y~~ ". :\~{J) \~,,-:. ,(
'"" '~)l "I ,,' -'j 1
~-t:~..)li .1!:W~) 1_-~11 ~ Lad
'~- ~ i' i ~-] '('
:J';-I~ ; '. j'_C"::,;,~ '! .
i.... ..- ! C:=h-~jl Iii !: i:
1;i_tg_JlD_~_~=:~_~'~-j;-'-::'g'~:j~-l~_Li:'__-[~ ~=ILI2-'.
I
I I !
I !
-Ti--- ---I-
I i
I I
, '
,
I
,
1 I
! i I
..-1_L___j
I
,
--- --f--
,'-
I
i
I
I
! Ii'
I Ii! I
--lilt'Ti-
i I I I
1 I
I I
I
or;; 0\ Id ...;
1- =_.-J
~
z
-
I-
III
III
0:::
,:::;;
Z
0
j: I-
W
<( w
:aE :c
III
0:: z
0
u.. z
Z Cl
- iii
I:)
0
0
::t:
I);;
0
m
::t:
C)
III
Z
ill
c
,:
Cl 0 (
0>
C ~
l5
., '" (5
::;; '" u l
llJ @ l r
~ 0 '" E I
.l!! 0
0, Qj
'" <( (j)
...----' -' iiJ
- ;;: D
:;; "
W 0
-" '"
\'-3 \",
~ "
"
rt:
llJ '" (\') '"
CO ""
::; N ,
::> " \
Z '0 '" n
llJ N '" "
Z ~ ,~ '"
0 jYJ ,.)
:I: ~,
a.
--s
<,...
.:5
j
! I
,"
10
.,
::;;
'"
'"
llJ
rt:
0
UJ 0
<(
~ lii
llJ
rt:
I-
<f)
t3
.,
E
V) '"
Z
- t5
> .,
d '0'
rt
" ~
~ ,( ~')3
0' V ~
cC _< A
1) ~ C' ~
g ~ ~ ~
5C'~,] ::-
o ~ \ f' ,~
o , v
o ~ '
~ (, cs l:;
~ -....Sl 0 t:.l
jl '" '-.
z M
8 f"-
'"
N
~
:g
w
"
co
~
o
U
,
c
Qj
(j)
i8
llJ 0
:E >,
<< 0
Z '.L
r-
)--
\n
"
OJ
t'-
r;, ,-
~ 0
v",
\'\ ,
I
I'{' ~
v., ,-
rf"\ ,,"
.(5'"
r":
?
')
"''':
-,
.2i "'
z 0)>
"
') ro'g
-0"::>
",roo.
'\; '" lD3",
\Jl ro 0- _
" ws!; ro
" ~~3
-:fJ N.".
'C i> 0" z
~ ~- -1'09
2:;~co
Q....,.. ,",,0)>
<(Of'-
0)"'- 0
0,,"
001,......
Z ,0
""
Er-~
"'~'"
-'"
--.....c.:) ill
(1J E 0)
'0",'"
~()o...
0''''
~O
"
z
f=
w
w
:;;
" f-
a w
~ ~
~VI
0:"
:I':Z
z C!J
cOO
a
a
:I:
0;
o
OJ
:I:
"
ill
Z
'"
~
~
m
:;;
'0
m
1ii
o
m
u
~
0:
'"
,';
ru
w
:;;
m
E
'"
z
-
u
m
'0"
Q.
/j
_ , 0
--~ ){
~)
-h
\ i,J
\--
"",
'---
(
'" \"~
.~ )~~-;I
'"
i!i
0(
~
w
'"
'"
w
-,
.9...
~,
,<,'
~ r:~
3<~_
_, "",<:J
\~\r\ '
, '
"
J
J
','\
,'. I
.:/
c;"-\
""-J
,~\: fJ
:::::1 ':~') Ii
(\'~0 -;..~~
"'- \ "\
......., ',J "'---.
L
~ ~
t: 0
s..
';j g
~u
VI 1)
~
"
.S
\.: ~
(^, '-'./
<~
~<- ",-. (
"h, " ")j
,)~ ~~_ VI .....,'
:',~ ,- \"
( -.-'\ "
~- . r\~ ,i]
"';:. . \ "---~ \
",,- ',' '"
........?;, ,-.,) '-,
'''. '-i
S~ -"...., .,-J
,,.j '~~
_~.s;;: ,'-.)
:::..1......... \J
I,' i
, ,'--L_:;)(::.1.
\ ,'J) '--,
''.J l.u \
~ ~ ~"
!"'-- 10
N' ,
"- --."
c.'\--. ../( , "'-; r'.
.,,:; \~ ~ \.
~, J ,,_' ~i1
~~i ,~ F
"J " c .-r~" "'I (I
\) \:::C'~ ~'1' ' Q
F<' ._-~~ .,.j
~'...----~ "
-", \~
~] 5,
"L+~~
l '- ---
_y ~ '--.) s..
~\~~~(( c] ~,,:;
(~~ ~
.....) ."--...
~~>~ (~ ~
." "" \'" ;::i ( 1'0,
...r V)~ V1 v'
".~ ~ ~ c::-
~ J, ,CJ,j
~ I ~ ,...1 ~~
i~~\O
\
\
~\\
Q:l >:'"
f'~
.~ ~
h~
~\~'
10 0
~
~ i I
~. ~~~~
(J--'~ ~.
S~ K-
........j
~::)
1)
,.J
l'
C:.
)
J
,J
j
'-r
y~
';)
~
'. ~~~:'-:~iWJ
COASTAL
ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
INC
CECl Gro..!1PSerYic~_~.
Civil Engincoring
Plorming StHvices
Surve\' & Mopping
Com1al Engineering
R'~ol Eslole Services
Websile: WWW.cod.tnlenglneering.com
A CEO GROUP COMPANY
August 12, 2009
Ms, Kay Oeselem, AlCP
Principal Plauner
Collicr Connty Government
Zoning and Land Developmcnt Review Department
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RE: PUDZ-2004.AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE, POST CCPC RE-SUBMITTAL
(CEC File No, 02,204)
Dear Ms. Deselem:
Attached please lind the te-submittal package for the above mentioned project. We arc submitting to you
the following documents:
A revised MPUO document, 11 copies, a revised Master Piau (24 x 36), 6 copies, a revised GMP
Analysis document, 4 copies, a revised Statement of Utility Provisions, 4 copies, Parcel 131 documents, 4
copies, a Proposed Access Easement and existing Access Agreement, 4 copiesl Proposed Access
Easement Details, tl copies, CGU:1ty Staff cmalIs, -4 copics~ a Transportation rv1emo, 4 copies, vUIIct;{Jluai
internal MPUD road cross scctions, 4 copies, a PUD checklist, I copy, a CO containing re-submittal
documents, I copy, and a check for the tc-sllhmillal fee of$2,IIS,OO,
After the CCPC meeting in May 2009 we have attempted to reach out to the surrounding neighbors in
order to address their concerns. \\To have included the written correspondence.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the County Staff and Planning Commission's concerns, If
you have any questions, please do 1I0t hesitate to contact me at (239) 643-2324 x134 or
mni:kQQ@~ecifl.colTl.
Sincerely,
COASTAL E~lNEEIUNG CONSULTANTS, INC.
/,r- ./". .;#,:1'
/:;:;:::/-:r#~/ 1'::: /'"
0Y j:'-'f"?:~~ ./
;;~e/ y~--,~-
Robert A, Andrea
Planning Consultant
cc: file
_1:~~A 11\ \1002\02204\MUPY,,?,,,~l.lb~]i,~lill Anc]' 5-,,7 _,~9 CCi'C\SI~~~~itllll DDcsI0220,1 J~eSllb\1liHlll Covel' Ltr _ Kn)'l0090730.doc
3106 S, Horr,C'~hoe Drive, ('lllPles, Floridu 3.110'1-5 \ 3/ . F'hone (2;)9J 6013.2324 Fox (239) 643.,1143 . E-t'/Ioil: in[o'.ilcecifLcolll
;~ ";'('.,' nr' ':' .';'1:\'(:, .: ~_! .I i
Page I of I
Robert Andrea - Appointment
. '-".C,'-' \~"-';c,.~'i;""7.;'?7:",:'.~'C,,,:;;;>1-;;:;:-~::I";Qf.:;''''',.:.;;'~~::::;j
From:
To:
Oate:
Subject:
Barry Goldmeier <bgoldmeier@aol.eo1l1>
<evan@verigold,com>
5/8/2009 12:32 PM
Appointment
. _...._.._.~.-.-._._.._---_.. ...~----,-,-_.
Evan:
] will be in Naples next week on May 12th on another matter and would like the opportunity to meet YOll
and or any other residents of Napli and Glenn Eagle plus even Country Side who want to have a
constructive discussion about our proposed project.
Since it became apparent tbat \ove have to Cllt down on the density but can not eliminate the
affordable/workforce or commercial elements we-are going to do a new design ofthc site plan, We have
limited flexibility because of the location of the persevere aod commercial sections and the lake have
been established and we are proceeding with Traditional neighborhood Design because it is better than
conventional design and will lead to a more attractive product and higher prices or rents for the units,
If you al1 are wil1 be willing to work with LIS in a constructive way, we will be happy to do the same,
Barry Goldmcier
cell: (305)984-3595
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above, See YJ>ur"in just 2,_e"'?Y steps!
JiIc:l/C:I[)oC1I111ClltS and Sellingslrandreall_ocal SettingsllemplGW} 00004,I-lTM
8/1112009
<{Ot'--
co~o
0""
n",l,~
Z .0
'"
E"-~
2 ruC'")
-.0 (l)
-8 E gl
C~(L
~)fl)
<co
Page 1 of3
Robert Andrea - Fwd: Appointment
It.',.';.~;,i~'v;;,G "~,;::m:I: ;";';":;'~:I:rt':;,:,~;::r7,S;:,::Si",%;T"i,,_'T2rr:"~',:,,:::;:"~',:,:,,:c::~;;.;.; ~,._' ~,.:. ~.".~;.~,:x",'; '.,' .""""'::in:":',' ".'" .;,_ ;":';,;;;.'o~;;,";Ti :~,:":;:':.<-;:,:;;~.::;:'''Ez.::;,E,'f-;:r~~!7;,':.,,k,~r;;:U::l!;:'a:,Z~>T'"-""'''''l
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Barry Golclmeier <bgoldmeier@aol.com>
<RPritt@ralaw,conl>, <raa@ceciil.com>, <lee@creativecapitalcorp,cOm>
5/9/2009 I] :28 AM
Fwd: Appointment
This is what Evan wants, I think that if he wants to be a developer, he should do so using his oWn money
not our money, After all, his entire motivation was to bolster the chances that the various spec condos he
owns can regain their valuc, Remember Evan got the Napoli condo associatiOlI to front the money fo1'
his personal crusade,
1 am attempting to get to get a meeting on Tuesday with othcrs at the Napoli condo, llcal11ed that Evan
sent out a group E-Mail blast saying that their effOlis bave led to our project being delayed and reducing
the density.
Barry Goldmeier
cell: (305)984-3595
-----Original Message-c--
From: Evan Steingatt <evan@verigold,com>
To: 'Barry Goldmeier' <bgoldmeier@aol.com>
Sent: lOri, 8 May 2009 3:37 pm
0"l...:,...,,+. DC'. ^ ........n;ntn~.c>ni
,JtllJJ.........L. .1.\.1"... I '~FjJUJ1Jll.LH-'Il."
Barry- Unfortunately I will be in Milwaukee and Chicago for most of the week As I fly 150K miles per year, it Is
best to plan in advance as much as possible,
At this point, I thinl< you really need to think about raising the bar. I realize that perception Is reality, and you are
perceived (by most) as building low end, I allude d to this in my a€cecorporate DNAa€'~J statement. However,
even Hyundai was able to build a car ( Genesis) that can compete with a Lexus, so there Is hope for you,
Going back to Napoiia€:.it is certainly an average development. However. the developer spent a little money on
a€ceLipsticka€rJ such as brick pavers, fountains, barrel tile roofs and architectural accents, He also went with a
traditional Meditteranean design, Wlllch never goes out of style,
I have never seen a project from you that raises the bar, although you might feel otherwise, Your projects reek of
cheapness, and that is my biggest compiaint. Would YOLl and YOLlr wife want to live next to one of your projects?
I can gi ve you a more definitive guide line of what we would like to see. but I really lhinll you need to blow this
thing up and start over, My suggestions:
. Even the name is cheap. Change it to something more exp"nsive sounding iike San Marino. Genoa, Siena
or pick any other Itaiian name,
. Dona€,Mt be so hung up with TND~ Nobody cares about it or even understands it. People who buy in
Naples donae"t want their neighbors so close that they can read the brand name of their TV.
. Nix the commercial space, we will all lose with this,
. Build larger units, nothing less than '1000 square feet.
. Build with a traditional MeditWanean design and styling cues, Use wrought iron, fountains. and pavers,
and especially barrel tile roofs, Nothing says cheap IIlle the asphalt shingles you use,
. Build a nicer pool area, not just a cement pond,
. Dona€""t use so much sod ( looks like green concrete), try to leave the natural vegetation as much as
tile:/IC:\Documenls ancl Setlings\ralldrea\Local Settings\Tcmp\GW}00005.HTM
8/1112009
Page 2 of3
possible, Replant with nalive vegetation and Pines,
. Keep as much of the Existing Pines as you can on the Perimeter, Dona€""t show so much concrete on the
main thouroughfares ( that looks cheap)
. Perhaps you can build garages and offer \I,em as an oplion for $20-30K as a way to generate more
income?
You need to really sit down with your a€ceDream TeamaLI and make them come up with something better than
you have ever done before, This is what our challenge is, Spend a little money, and youa€'MII make money in
return, Keep cheaping out, and we will keep pushing back harder than ever. BOTIOM LINE IS, WE WANT
SOMETHING NICE, NOT JUNK
Once you have a detailed site plan that complies with the surrounding neighborhoods, and that you would be
happy to live next to, then we can talk,
I hope I am finally getting through to you?
Regards,
Evan
Evml Stcingart
V.P.- Sales and Product I}:.;velopmcnt
Verigoldl Di\'. of Renaissance ,}cwcllcry Ltd.
501 r'v1mlisoH ^ venue 9th Fluor
New Y(\rk. N\. 10012
CELL: 954~(igJ-55:~1)
r'AX: 212-{l86~ 728:\
From: Barry Goldrneier [mililtQ;P9olQrneier@<!ol.c:om]
Sent: Friday, May 08,200912:30 PM
To: ~\I~l1@v~rjgQkLq)JJI
Subject: Appointment
Evan:
I will be in Naples next week on May ]2th on another matter and would like the opportunity to meet you
and or any other residents of Nap Ii and Glenn Eagle plus even Country Side who want to have a
cunstrnctive discussion about our proposed project.
Since it became apparent that we have tu cut down on the density but can not eliminate the
alTordablc/workCorce ur commercial elements wc arc going tu do a new design ofthe site plan, We have
limitedl1exibility because ofthe location oflhe persevere and commercial sections and the lake have
been established and we are pl"Occeding with Traditional neighborhood Design because it is beller than
conventional design and will lead to a HrOlC allractivc product and higher prices or rents for the units..
If you all are will be willing to work with us in a constructive way, we wi,lI be happy \0 do the same,
Barry Goldmeier
cell: (305)984-3595
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above, ~egYQ,ursil1 jUs\:Le'lsYstepJ?!
11Ie:IIC:I])oclIlnents ancl SCllingslrandrcalLocal SeltingslTemplGWlOO()OS.llTlvl
8/11/2009
1.. TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
13881 PLANTATION ROAD, SUITE 11
FORT MYERS, Fl33912-4339
OFFICE 239.27B.3090
FAX 239.278.1906
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
SIGNAL SYSTEMS/DESIGN
TO:
Robert Andrea
Coastal Engineering Consultants
PROM:
Ted 8, Treesh
President
DATE:
August 7, 2009
RE:
David Reserve
Supplemental Analysis
Collier County, Florida
TR Transportation Consultants, Inc, has completed a supplemental analysis for the
proposed Davis Reserve to address the concerns of Collier County, Collier County Staff
has requested that the Concurrency analysis be npdated to reflect 2015 conditions as well
as conditions placed on the application limiting the number ofP,M, peak hour trips,
Concurrency Analysis Update
The trip generation for the project was revised based upon the recently released ITE Trip
Gencration 8th Edition, In addition, consistent with the original '118, a pass-by rate of
25% was utilized as well as an internal capture rate of 15%, Table 1 below reflects the
updated trip generation calculations,
<(01'--
CO -:- C-")
.07
~N_
Z .0
~.m
E~-~
CD "-t'"")
_, ill
-.0 ~
m r-::::;)
vQ;m
COo..
Q) (1)
~cYo
1:. TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
Mr. Robert Andrea
Davis Reserve
August 7, 2009
Page 2
Table 1
Trip Generation - New Trips
Davis Reserve
';:il,l~y:jj-I1\~r.~': f.\':W~.~kaliP:M; Pg;ik a.ji~,,': .(.o~i1Y
:t:lim!":~,'::.'Ji.r' 'W\lt . .t~tljl,,(27~~Y)
1,605
3,430
5,035
Multi-Family 20 100 ]20 95 45 140
(LUe 230) _._~----- -------. -----~-
Shopping Center 50 35 85 ]55 160 315
(LUe 820)
__Iota] Trips ["70 I:I3.'i.__J~.205 -..J 250 205 455
The Concurrency analysis was then revised based upon the trip generation indicated
above in Tablc 1 and the current 2008 Collier County Annual Inventory Update Report
(AUIR), Tahle IA indicates the results of the updated Concurrency analysis, Also
included is Table ] 13 which was completed utilizing traffic data that acconnts for the
extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard and thc I'ednction of traffic that will occur on
County Bard Road, From Table 113, all roadway segments anticipated to be significantly
impacted by the proposed development based upon the 2%-2%-3% Significance Test are
sbown to bave suflicient capacity to accommodate tbe trips Ii-om the proposed
development.
Trip Generation Comparison to Grocerv Store
From discussions with Collier County Staff~ a Grocery Store use is identified on the list
of Schedu1ed Uses that would have the potential to generate more peak hour trips than a
shopping center of comparable size, Jt has been agrccd that should a grocery store
(supermarket) use be constructed on the site, it IVould he limited to 20,000 square feet in
size, Tablc 2 outliues the projected trip generation ofthc project should a 20,000 sql18re
foot grocery store (supermarket) be constructed on the site, Since all three types of uses
(LUC 820, LUC ~50, & LUC 2:\01 generate more lranlc during tbe PM peak hour, the
PM peak hour was utilized iu the comparison,
Tablc 2
Trip Gcneration - New Trips
Davis Reserve w/SupcrInarkct
:-:~~:::"~::'Y 1- w~'r~,";k ~:;;~
- SU;;~:~1;'::)I~~t . - i---I ()S--I' ,. 160 . ----;:,5--
(LlJC R50) I
Total.'irip,-=r.26IJ.., J~_2(J5n_L<l.65~_~_~
h TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
Mr. Robert Andrea
Davis Reserve
August 7, 2009
Page 3
As can be seen when comparing Table I with Table 2 in the PM Peak Hour, the project
would generate tcn (10) more inbound trips if a 20,000 square foot grocery store would
be developed on the site, Therefore, the applicant is agreeable to the language as
proposed by Staff whereby the PUD would be conditions as follows:
"The /'Jortion of this PUD that contains non-residential square footage shall be limited to
a f!ross maximum of 325 PM Peak Hour two-way trios, No combination of the allowable
commercial uses "ranted bv this PUD shall be allowed to exceed the maximum number
of "ross trips that has been analvzed. "
Access to the site from Davis Boulevard is now shown approximately midway between
County Bam,-Road and the eastern property boundary, Discussion with the Florida
Departnlent of Transportation have indicated that this location would meet the Access
Management criteria for this section of Davis Boulevard and will he limited to right-
in/right-out movements only,
Attachments
Table 3
Trip Reduction Factors
Davis Resel'Ve
Entire Development
(lnternal Ca lure Reduction)
External Retail Traffic
(Pflss-By Reduction)
15%
25%
<( 0 r'_
00....0
0,,"
00J,,-
Z ,0
""~
E r- C'J
('j,) '-(<)
-' QJ
-.ow
ro E':::D
'Drut1J
~uCL
o,QJ
<('0
Table 4
Trip Generation - Ncw Trips
Davis Reserve Net New External Trips
With 20,000 s ,ft. Groce Storc
~___'fotal TliEs_~u 260 205 465
Less 15% Internal Capture -40 -30 -70
__~_ Exter~~aj Trips__~__220___ 175_ 395
Less External Retail Pass-By I -35 -35 -70
(Chucery Tri)$ ~ (J,BS . 0.25) j I
L New Extcrnajjri)~s~L 182 14U I 325 u II
Trip GcnCl'ntioll based on glit Edition of the [mlitutc oflral1:,pDrtation Engineer's report titled Trill
(;cncration.
TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS
DAVIS RESERVE
ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 8th EDITION
II Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday
Residential Condo/Townhouse Ln (T) ~ 0,80 Ln (X) + 0,26 Ln (T) ~ 0,82 Ln (X) + 0.32 Ln (T) ~ 0,87 Ln (X) + 2.46
(LUC 230) "-~--"--~- ---~--
T = Trips, X = Number of Units
Shopping Center I Ln (T) ~ 0,59 Ln (X) + 2.32"\ Ln (T) -~ 0,67 Ln (X) + 3.37 Ln (T) ~ 0,65 Ln (X) + 5,83
I (LUC 820)
I T ~ Trips, X ~ 1,000 sq, f1. GF A ~~"~O,61 Ln(X)+3,95
bShOPPing Center L T ~ 3 59 (X) T~66,95(X)+ 1391.56
(LUC~20) _
, _I' ~ Trips, X ~ 1,000 sq 1\, GFA -
z
o
Uj
z
W
0-
X
W
a
<<
;;
w
--'
::J
o
Cl
~
<{
Cl
<<m
;;'jUj
",>-
0---'
z<{
",z
m<{
0->-
::JU
offi
:r:",
Co::
~::J
-U
",Z
-0
~U
roo!S
.......25<i
--""'N(2
~ZW
~ol-
moC2
<{WU
r-mr-
<{u
m<t
","-
Z2
Or-
i=z
u'"
Wu
'""'u:
~z
"-C)
Urn
u:~
~'7
",,,,
I-~
Z ,0
ON
i=
u
W
'"
[5
'"
'"
W
"-
ri
::0
o
:r:
'"
<{
W
"-
"'
;;
N
w
m 1- ".
~ ffi ): ::l
lU U U m
:I: ;;: <t 5
j ~ ~ ~
~ ~ u
:.: <t
~ r: ~ ;- ii:1 ~ ~
z 0 w [rl
;:;: <{ 1-""
:i 0.. u.. 0
~ (3 <1 f ~] fi: ~
~ ~ EI
~~~~ ~~
N (3 ffl ?i
If 0:: U
I UI H
c
~ SI
~ ~
o ~
.
Q
"
3 Vl i3 ~ ~
g: g :i fj ~
c
~
~ ~ ~l
a :i ;;1
g: ~ :::; 2 ;e
~ UI ' ~
giHi~~
" "
~ ~ ~I
~ 0 cr: ~ ~
~ 13
'" 0
u "
g~~jm~
'" ~ ~I '"
"
~ c:.-
o
@I
g ~I ~ ~
,-
~
G; <G
,
~ I ~~I~~
"
I ,
" "
,
t;
iiJ pi
~ -
w
~
~; r~
o u
it s:
<( <;(
It a::
I" f-
~ ~J
o 0
(1: ct
'c "
~ ~
C! 0
I :r
:;: :t
~ ~J
"
G'
,"
2
~
~I f ~
D
"
~I '
~ 0
o '
g ~
" c'
,
::r: .;,~
" ,
i~ ~.
2 ~
o 0
z z
"
I uJ
>
t3 ill 0
> > z
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ .-
~ ~ ~ ~
[8 12 12 ~
~ ~
w w
, >
g~~~~g
<0 i:<: ::.:: ill
M
"'
"
l!1 c~ m '" <0
,.; (j] (J", ell 'l"
~ ~ ,., ~ ~ re
~~I~~~
~ g ;:'; ;~ ro '-'
CD f;l <~. '" ~ (",
"
~ggg~~
Q ,," ....,
rr'l \f] m
~ <0 ~ ~ CO ;;
o 0 CO U
'" r ,", (<) CO
~ ~ 1l '" '" ~
~~~~~~
;,)
"
" "
,. a:: '" OJ
~ ~ " ! fg
gm~m~~
~~~,~mo
~Ll~~,~~
'0 0 5 Ci '0 '0
S. 5: s: s: Uj ll!
"
~
~
'0
,
"
U
~
w ro
M r
u
CD :0
r:: .".
" n
" "
~ ~
ill "
,
~ C
v 6
CO u
.(; (",
<
,
~
E
"
T
"
"
,
C
"
"
,
,<
Q 0
Z Z
:;; .,.
r 0
~
o
g-; i);
g 0
'f! ;J,
,0 ,~
m
m
M
~ Z
~ *
N
') Ll
~ ~
o
z
~
"
M
l
,
~
"
,
D
~
"
N
~
.
,
"
~
o
"
"
C
c
,
<
"
~
o
"
5
~g
o
m
w
"
D
~ ~
~
~
~
~
N
M
,
< .
~
i
9
w
,
~ C(
2
n- r"
R,: "
d ~
m
,
,
.
~ 'f)
"
~
,
'" n
" ,
"
,
,
D 0
'0 iii
5 ~
,.- I
oP
<1>""
L10~
Q.l~o...
<D 1J
(
l ,
/'.)-->.3
""-,>
O' Z
-NO
-'>0
o~CD
-<OP
"
iiS
ro
o
,
z
"
>
m
~
~
m
"
~
~
<(or-
ro~o
.0""1"
o~L~
Z
E
.ill GJ,j
-.Q '"
"'E'"
D",'"
C()O-
"'",
.,'[0
z
o
iii
z
w
>-
X
w
o
0;
:;;
w
-'
::;,
o
m
<<
'"
<<
m
'"
<<
m
<>:
>-
z
<>:
'"
J:
>-
~Ul
:i'U5
w>-
0-'
0<<
2~
W>-
-'u
~z
"'W
<<'"
Wo;
u,::;,
>-0
-'Z
-'0
:'!;U
~""
<>:<<
aJ~ir:
u,W
LUU)t:
~2O::
<;(~O
i-cnt;
u,<>:
<n"-
;;2
N>-
Zz
0<<
O~
wu..
~Z
mS!
",'"
z~
O~
i=';f?
~~
,~
01-..
'"
"-
o
u:
u..
<<
'"
>-
Z
o
i=
u
UJ
!'=
o
'"
<<
W
"-
ci
::;,
o
J:
'"
<<
w
"-
<n
~
o
N
w
m "
~ in i';: ~
W [i U ;
;!: it ~ <
.J ::> (.J >
~ '" <:
~ ~
w w
~ ~
~
l'l~~~l~~
~ ~ ~
Q ;;( r: ....
N ::!: U "'>
~~~~Ia~
u
u
"
~ ~ ~I ~ ~
~ ~
'" n- ::
g ti" ::>
x 0
::.:: 9 ;Sl ~ ~
a. S ... '" ..
m
~ 0
~ n ~Ito to
"" :r: [5 ~ "" '"
~ <
~ m
~ "
~ z ~I
o ~ !":: '" '"
5 ~ ~ ~ OJ'
~ 3 6 0
is <
.<: ill 9 ~I m ~
~ B ~ ~ ~ ~
I :r ~ <:> 0
~ ~I ~ ~
~;~~I~~
"
U~ ~
"
~311~~
^ 0
o "
~ g ii:! '" ~
[g~lw~~
" IP
,- "
o 0
o 0
~ ~ Qi ~
~ ~ g]
~ '"
-0
~
<fJ <{ 0 D
aD",
.-I Z "'. oJ
<
"
~
::r: J"
" "
> >
>
I ~I ~ ~
"
~
"
~ ~l ~ ~
w
~
"
u "
it &:
< "
~ oc
" "
" "
" "
'" w
(3 (3
" "
~ "
" "
::J ;:)
o 0
I I
~ ~
ffill"
::: 0> (!)
l'l <:: '0
lU *- U)
"
~~I ~
... ~
o
:i 0:
;t ~
" "
o 0
" ,-
, ~
f/) m f/)
w w w
> ~ ~
: 'til ~ ;:>
~
, m
.
'" ^
NO"
0_ 0 '"
I ~
N 0 ~
'D ;0_ ~.
~_ J;. ~ ~
m
I ~.
~ ?,. ~-
^
, m
o
g g ,~
000
W <0 <0 W
~ ~ ~ ~
o CI 0 0
g ~ ~ <n
0_" '"
'" ~ iG ~
N
"
I ;_
m '"
..'
h t-
~ O. ~
o ^
Z ~
(I) (Ij III 0
~ ~ ~ Z
co ,_ .' ,p ~ ~
N ", '" '"
';., :z _ ;,1 W ::;;
N ::;; '"' fri ~ N
o~~ Ss~~
~ <:) '" ~ ~
" N- N N- '"
~~~~~~
;::! ::! ~ ~ ill :ci
j
" "
ffi ~ : '"
8~ ~~n
~J~iii
oooo(;~
~ ;;: S" S" ui IJJ
"
"
3
'"
,
o
000
Z Z Z
,0 ,0
; ".-,
_ 0 0
c
"
a '" U")
" Q <.:>
" ~, N
'"
~ g ~
,- ;:! ~
"
" " W
" "
E E
'" m ~
ro m ..
~ ~ ~
o g tJ
'0 '0 "6
;: w ui
"
~
,
I
*
~
"
o 0
Z Z
.
.
~
,
,
!
!
!
.
o
,;
o
g
~
.
<
,
~
~
~
~
"
<
~
,
e
~
n
o
1
~
~
"
n
~
"
"
~
B
"
*- ;;;
o
,
"
o
~
~ <t I
< ..
~ ~
" ~
l.) ~ to
:3 .. ~
" "
: ~ ~
-~~~~~
,,~ ~.:}
,
"'
g ~
~ ~
, "
~
o 0
I ,<
.. "
" 0
8 i
N
~ ~
o "
"
N "
"' -
~
i. ~ l
,. ,,~
~ " ~ ,:: ]
,
.. 0:: :g;:"
2 ~ .. ~ 13
r;t: !'." N
l 1> ~ ~
c :;; E
t
"
~ ~
~ ~
~
,
" ~
., ]
~ ~
.;j
~ ~
. 0
,
,
o
" "
2 >
ro m
o
~ ;;
o 0
" "
Z ^
o
,;
" 0
~ S
,
,_ eo
, ,
~
,
,
,-
~
"
o
"
.
"
~
"
~
INSTR 4434262 OR 4570 PG 1102 RECOROED 5/26/2010 8:54 AM PAGES 11
DWIGI~ E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
DOC@,70 $350,00 REC $95,00
CONS $50,000,00
This instrument \Vas prepnred by
and after recording return to:
Daniel K. \Veidenbruch, Esq.
Roetzel & Andress,
A Legal Professional Association
850 Park Shore Drive
Trianon Centre, Third Floor
Naples, Florida 34103
(239) 649-6200
Consideration: S50,000_00
Documentary Stnmp Tax: 5350.00
(space above this line for recording data)
EASEMENT-~EMENT
/ 1bR r "
//~ 1, c-------...:!A~
-Y>'/.., ~/, ~
THIS EASEMENT AGREtl\)ENT (the "Agreement'. ade and entered this ~ day of
May, 2010, hy and between Comer (ia,yis,L-Io",_~.Florida Ii~ Ii ~iIity company. whose address is
1',0, Box 279. Key BiseaYne'f(o~r' ~ 3j1'4<J',.its 'eUC. eessor~and/or assig~s, ("Collier Davis") and Berean
BaptlSt Church of Naples, FI nd ;r,j{0J(,;F)Tda~"ft~ ~-~rpOlatlOn, whose address IS 185 I
County Barn Road, Naples, FI rid ,,\~~ \ts rr~t~ ~ (g'f' ("llerean"),
\V Ji'TH;'r\<;;: R....,-.........; r~p n~~d f1. i,~........;~::J..",..t F;; l.:..b [~. .....,...r,... ~M-f;n..T__ H AM_-:l..,n,1
.. H_____.~..~"_', ~~......... '1 .~r...". t:........ o~ .!la. ......... lUll.,.......". vi..... . ;'t.:::,Pf' 'J ...v'..... r'''''u....u,a,ly u\...;:>.....JlJ....u
on Exhibit "N' attached hereto ~Q\.~~~oTJ1orated herein (t~Ber~a~;{)r~~n): and
\'1' \ 'i;~j /.0/
WHEREAS, Collier Da~frs 'lh,e owner of that eertay,/tt<lcJlof real property more particularly
described on Exhibit "8" attached h~r~o'aiJd.jneorporated l1e~ii;'(lhe "Collier Davis Proo.my"); and
'.....f"' )">__....-:--/ ('\);..-
WHEREAS, Collier Davis is in ~hi'p~iJ6,~i!~verQ'ping the Collier Davis Property pursuant to
that certain Davis Reserve Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (the "MpUD'"); and
WHEREAS, the MpUD provides for, among other things, access to and from the Collier Davis
Property by way of a roadway and access easement located 011 a portion of lhc Berean Property; and
\VBEREAS, Berenn is desirous of providing to Collier Davis a perpetual, nonexclusive easement
for vnnous purposes as more particularly set forth herein including, \vithout limitation, pedestrian and
vehicu]nr ingress and e6'Tess over, across and through a portion of the Berean Property in order to provide
the Collier Da\'is Property with a means of ingress and egress to and from that certain roadway knO\vn as
County Bam Road pursuant to the MPUD; and
\VIIEREAS, the casement imposed hereunder is intended to: (1) constitute a burden on the
Bercnn Property and a benefit to all persons or entities hercnfter owning (or otherwise having an interest
in) all or any portion of the Collier Davis Property; (ii) constitute a coven:mt nmning with the land; and
(iii) he binding upon Collier Davis, Berean and each of their respective successors and/or assigns.
NOW. THEREFORE, Jar and in consideration of the sum of Filly Thousand and 001100ths
Dollars ($50,000.00), the mutual premises set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration the
receipt and sufficiency of which arc hereby mutually acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:
Page 1
OR 4570 PG 1103
1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein,
<to r--
co~o
0""
,...,('.,j,,,-
Z': 0
""(D
E~N
CJ~C')
....... Q.l
-LlCJ
"'EGO
DCJ'"
~oCL
cn5P
<:(u
2. Easement Grant. Bereao hereby grants, gives and conveys to Collier Davis and its
successors, assib'1ls, guests, tenants, employees, invitees, licensees and designees. a perpetual,
nonexclusive easement in, upon, over. across, under and through that portion of the Berean Property as
described in Exhibit "en attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Easement Area"), as an
appurtenance to and for the benefit of the Collier Davis Property for purposes of pedestrian and vehicular
ingress and egress, signage and entry features (reasonably acceptable to both parties), stormwater
drainage facilities, utilities, irrigation and landseaping (the "Easement"), In addition, the foregoing
Easement shall include the right, at any time and from time to time, to construct improvements within the
Easement Area consistent with the aforementioned purposes.
3, Cnnstruetinn and Maintenance of Roadwav, Upon final (and non-appealable)
approval by Collier County (and any other governmental and/or quasi-governmental agency or
department having jurisdiction over the property) (collectively, the "Authorities"), and provided said
approval(s) arc not subject to conditions ~~,+~li!;r-DaVis' sole discretion, render development of
the project unfeasible, Collier Davis~6~1~~~&WJ':,,--roadWay (or otherwise improve and/or
expand the eXlstmg roadway) wIth~~1 iisement Area, tdg"'el~frilvIth certam pavmg, entry features and
signage .(reasonably ac~eptable)o ~t parties), storrnwate :1Ira~ge f~cilities, utilities, irrigation,
landscapmg, and other Improvime S r.j'ur;h"..-h<;J1e.fiU?,L,the Ihei\DavIs Property and the Berean
Property (collectively, the "Roidw Irrlfuo cis"), CoJ\ier Da 's SBill use eommerdally reasonably
efforts to obtmn approval tom .et~~ ~ 11\ 'y tho ties to permIt the Roadway
Improvements to be built in bst nt' I a 0 da c i t e on ep ual Ian attached hereto as Exhibit
"D" (the "Conceptual Plan") ffl~'..!. ~9~,? 0 a i want d, th fll, adway Improvements shall be
constructed in substantial aCCd~d.~, ewith theConeepIli.tl, Pla~, 'Tl\@4Vregoingnotwithstanding,inthe
event the Authorities require t ~1l.-- nceptual Plan to be~visetl sriG~Jhat the Road\vay Improvements
cannot be built in substantial ac a. ce with the concep'l\l\ih,~CClallier Davis shall notify Berean of
such fact at which point Berean \.1\a~ ve the right, but ~~lIe),.5bligation, to participate in further
discussions with Collier County andl ~ftte~ut!Jorili<:-'UIs~(()he;:.final approved layout of the Roadway
Improvements and the parties shall wo Iwi#tfs m'\i1fQ.~falth to accommodate the reasonable access
requirements of both Berean and Collier Da~in-a~arrner that is consistent with the Conceptual Plan.
Subject to applicable laws, regulations and ordinances, Collier Davis shall provide for and perpetually
maintain ample landscaping along the Northern border of the Easement Area to buffer the Berean
Property from the effects of the traffic accessing the Collier Davis Property, The same shall be
constructed and installed at the sole cost and expense of Collier Davis. Once constructed and installed,
the Roadway Improvements shall be maintaincd and repaired by the owner(s) of the Collier Davis
Property, and their successors and/or assigns, jointly and severally, Alternatively, the owner(s) of the
Collier Davis Property may fonn a property o\vners' association (or the like) to maintain the Roadway
Improvements at which time all maintenance and repair obligations contained iil this Agreement may be
assigned to said property owners' association. If assib'l1cd to a property owners' association (or the like),
Berean will thereafter look solely to said property owners' association for the performance of the
maintenance and repair obligations contained in this Agreement. The foregoin~ notwithstanding, any
damage or destruction to the Roadway Improvements that is caused by either party or any of its guests,
invitees, licensees or designees shall be promptly repaired by that party at its sole cost and expense,
Except as expressly pennitted by the lenns of this Agreement, no alterations of, or expansion to, the
Roadway Improvements shall be made without the written consent and approval of either party, which:consent shall be promptly !:,'Tanted provided said alteration and expansion does not require an expansion of
the Easement Area or otherwise materially affect access to either party
Page 2
OR 4570 PG 1104
4. Prohibitions. Neither party shall, in any way, obstruct the Easement Area or otherwise
interfere with or hinder the use of the Easement which prohibition shall include, without limitation: (i) the
parking of any cars, trailers or other vehicles within, or otherwise blocking~off, the Easement Area; and
(ii) the construction of any walls, fences. gates, ditches, canals (or similar excavations) or other
improvements which would obstruct access to the Collier Davis Property or otherwise interfere with the
use or enjoyment of the Easement. Nothing shall preclude Berean from limiting access to the Berean
Property, including but not limited to installation of gates or other access controls, Berean may, subject
to regulation by the Collier County Sheriffs Office, provide temporary traffic direction during regular
and special worship services of Berean provided, however. at no time shall access to the Collier Davis
Property be unreasonably blocked or otherwise impeded, Construction traffic generated by development
of the Collier Davis Property shall not utilize the Roadway Improvements,
5. i\1iscellaneous.
5,1 Covenants Running With the Land, This Agreement shall run with the land
and shall inure to the benefit of each owner(s) of the Berean Property and the Collier Davis Property and
shaIl be binding upon each owner(s) of the Ber~r p d tbe Collier Davis Property, or any portion
thereof or any interest therein, and their~sii>\;\! r A1<!1er assigns,
/:O'y/-- ~1'1"-.
5,2 Governi'lg fu.)?"' This Agreement shall1.: ci)~strued in accordance with Florida
law, exclusive of choicc of law rUles, Nenm:-~, n disE,IJlc: nrisi~. her\under shall be in Collier County,
Florida, {; / 1''-''<.v\ r '\ \ \
~~ ~-"" ':c-;:;--. ~('77\ \
5,3 Amen 1m l. rrh~ 19r e ~~I IQo\l.lSe me lded, modificd, or terminated,
unless in writing executed by ,t,h5~~}'.@,~7~t,p, of tll)" tOlr!,t,~avis Property and the Berean
Property and recorded m the P~l"~e~rds Of'C-:1l1IIef"Ca~ntY',l'iOtidl1B::J
\,.-:'\ lk, I / -J.
5.4 SeveraIH)i(Y0 The invalidation ,1'Il1:2h:/ol)Jlie provisions contained in this
Agreement, or of the appltcatlOn ~e~to any party by Judg1jl~pl",J' court ordcr shall m no way affect
any of the other provisions hereof oNhtlA')p~~~~.!'J>t{~IiI.)M same shall remain in full force and
effect. ""J f-f[: C1RC/'
~----.::~.~.-:.----------
5.5 Attorney's Fees. In the event orany legal proceedings or litigation arising from
this Agreement, the prevailing party or parties shall be entitled to recover all costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees incurred in the action or proceeding (including those incurred at trial and appellate levels),
in addition to any other relief to which it or they may be entitled.
5.6 Counterparts; Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in one
or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an originnl, but all of which, when compiled together,
shall be deemed one instrument. F::Jcsimilc, c.mail or other electronically transmitted signatures shall be
binding upon the parties as originals.
IN WITNESS WHERIoOF, the parties have caused this Af,'Teement to be duly executed by fully
authorized signatories as of the date first \vr1tten above.
[SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW]
Page 3
<(or-
CO~o
.0'1"
0('\.1,,-
Z ,0
""CO
E~('l
'"~C')
_'"
-.0 m
.g E ~}
c'"o..
,"0
0)'"
<.(0
OR 4570 PG 1105
Signed. sealed and delivered
in the presenct: of:
COLLIER DAVIS:
Collier Davis, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company.
i~TS~~'-
By: Goldmeier (NI) LId,
a Florida limited pannership,
its Managing Member
By: Goldmeier (NJ) Corp"
a Florida corporation,
its General Partner
~ ~ ~f'~~- . ,irtPJI
/ (jo/~ '~<Z~ldmeier, President
) / )"-~----,~ ~ \
Goldmeler, PresIdent of Goldme. ) Corp" a Flonda c1~~J~10 .'JJJGeneral Partner of Goldme.er
(NI) Ltd" a Florida limited partne 'p, 'Ille Managing Mer:;~~31 ~aVis, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, on behalf of the~jJ>.<lle~nies, who iS~"j;l onally kno to me or ( ) has
produced N::Jf) /.. '-lis IAelirtfieatlon;;'C"\.e' . I
~~911>>
STATE OF AfS
COUNTY OF ~
(SEA L).
~.,\\l,\':l:" 'r~'f'"",
"." :vIICli. '1,.. .
'/"1 ..................~~(-' "'~;.. ;
"l.." N .,( ';.
: .. (\ 0, ',n-'
. . {1 'i /,..... ~
~ I~;~( ~ D. ~ 19j
,,-' (/\:;....., =
'-'<':~:':::>"~(:..,--,."::~~/
""''''''111'''''''\
UN
lW PUBLIC oFllEW JERSr"
MYC MMISSIOII EXPIRES JULY 15, ,OW
Nolary Publi .
Print Name:
My Commission Expires:
Page 4
OR 4570 PG 1106
~4,,~Rya~
BEREAN:
Berean Baptist Church of Naples, Florida, Ine,.
a Florida not-for-profit corporation,
n,~~
Print Name: . ~D
Title: "~ Ae/J
BY~~_~ ~
Print Name: v, ~ 1::..
, ~~ I; "L 1/--- __-----2't1e: ~, ~ '-?,; "'-s .
Kala m:1'J /~\;'R C()>'-.."
/O\~~::-~-..Ij!l/l">,
/ C/' ,''{\
' ,A/)"'~~"j'\F~--J\ \ \
~ ~~ -=" ~~;r\ \
0~ w sJ~Gl d ~e~r ~;lt.@1i1 o~~~a;{es~~;~;;;a~I!~~,~;
,oflhe eorpor~l:i!12' \, 0,1 ,~\:)! personally knO\\o11 to me or ( )
asidentifica~ ,I /01
:...,.... ~~)/l'/
... / .' /
:-... /.,' /
'. / "\.'/
/~ar.:'ii.""" KIJlENSCOOClf.:::,,-' ']l~-(:~/' .'
!J "'t'\ MYCOI.MSSIOOIOO,,,,,,,,,.., C -N!l fy'Pllb ie: r'a,nM C'~..._ h
" ;; EXPIRES:.l.nel~2012 ----;', ,---A ~N__G
~... ,. ~ Btnitdnnr~!'Ittel.hWwltn J nnt Name,
of.:, , My Commission Expires:
Il-
~
(Corporate Seal)
(SEAL)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ~
)
) ss
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me tbis 4 day of April, 2010, by
~~ ' as -PeA 1'<''''' of Berean Baptist Church of Naples, Florida, Inc., a
Florida not-fo of the corporation, who is ( ) personally l.:nown 10 me or ( )
has produced as identification,
. I ,._JIII It II'
(SEAL)
,'"iP::'i!f;, KAREN SCHOCH
{*i}), .::~ MY COMMISSION f DD 7CJ.:52
~...~~;,; EXPIRES: Me 13. 2012
'Z.,;,:,,,:;;,"- ~nru,,",bryf\t>h:t.~>OO'W'1'~J1
~u/V'- ~)(~
Notary Pu lie: -Karen-Sehoch
Pnnt Name:
My Commission Expires:
590859 v_03 \ 113916,0001
Pogc 5
OR 4570 PG 1107
<(01....-
OO~O
0.,,-
OC'J~
Z - 0
"'-0
E"""-(Y)
2 WC")
-..ow
ru:=Ol
~iDci':
Ql U
q)~
cl--
*** OR: 4121 PG: 0950 *tt
~'__''''''''_ ~_J
-..-..-.-,.......-- "..~.'l.....
.=.a~.&.LW'~nA"~ ::..=-.,-
_:10__
IJ:)a!UtJ lSt1dTB xna::m _.~
. .. - -
-
.-
'..'
0
0
~
"
0 ~
::
n
- z- o.
~-
II
! .
~
.;;
, 0 ~
1 ~
,
,
:
, 0
: 0
: a
~------------_.--~------------------------------ ~
! 331..30' :
:
1
,
:
.,
-,
"
N.
".
~!
II '
I; :
II :
II i
~; :
,
. ~ l!Ii
!h . ~~ ~~ h
91;~ .i~~i e~ ~~~
i~3wE~~~~ e2 ~e:w
~~~~~~:D: s~~ 8~~p
'~";rz t....:z: 1: :;toe;
"" OO!;15~d~::: B":::~
o 0'" L Z... .,oJE::>
5 w'~o~~g ~ow.rK"
~ ~:!::lt:.....u ~d-f::I<..e
-.. ~ln ~t:- ....;;;:~..........z
.... O'Ii;=...~~g~S~:~ii
~g~~ifig~-..."...~~L~~
ee=~L~~ei~!~a2~.~
..
3~..; .;
d II
g~ i m.~.
~I .-a" *
. '".1'
u !~_~I:
t t~51'iEh
g~ eli Il@i
.~ l~ Il!"
~~ m~ii~
.
i ~ ~ i
, - !
.
I ~ i i
~ 0
!I
I
. XI: Wl....m,oe.
t....~
,~",....y
S00'4.S'I.a"(U1.60"(S)(8t.UmfG1.I.SlS)
I;
,I
il
------------
COUNTY BAJIlf R04D (100' R,O,If.)
f..,(h;/,,'f 71 '.
.; .;.
. -
~ ~!l
~ ~ z~~
::I :J Rw.
z5 ~; ~~ nea
;;;:..;':J: 'I foK ~~~l
.~;5_i ..~"...
g8~~~~""~~~~ ~.a8~~
Ig.. !....~> .~~8~~;
~~~!Ei~~lasli s~~~ee
..................
.:i')O .
~~~~~.~a.;c'.6GB~u
I'
:!I
'I '
c-f!)
t3
~
t3
~
~
~
~
1__..-
I
\~
,,,,
I~
,~
I~
,~
I~
'3
~ I
,
I
~
~o
Cl~
.
~-
r.;
~..
~:l
o~
g;~
~
,
I
I
,
,
,
,!, II I:~
~l, u lJ ! . ~
~1 ~
, u
I
, 11,1
I a '"1"1
, -
<D ,II
w*q
z
~+
...
...
-
u
:::l
~
-
<= ..:
m:i;;
'-C> =
C'""") 8....:
~
=-
..PQ~
t.!) ~ u
c:::a.... c5 ..;
uu
<>
I.S'" ':::: ::
.
~ a,..;
~. ~....
u'"'
... '"
.... eo.: _
o::~~
C)::s ::.::
u ~
<=:Jl ;;:: =
co ~..:.;
LC") <>
~..:g.......
.-t ~ "'
.-tc~
-=:tt -- ~
'" ~
...-
'" ~
~ ~
<>-
u~
:::l-
" ~
<: ~
~ >-
~~
~ u
.
.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CML ACTION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida,
v,
Petitioner,
Case No, 06-0876-CA-LDM
-a
~
~
f("">
--
&'
CHARLES R, KELLER, et a!.,
Parcel(s): 131
'"
=
-
-
Respondents,
/
STlPULA TED FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the-i'pJll't-ljf)pnJoint Motion made by Petitioner,
;"-'"'\bK LUt)"",,-
, ~i. \~<:''V:n'',
(OLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, J?{~~'.furough Its underst~~counsel, and Respondent,
/ ~---- \ \
COLLIER DAVIS, LLC" for e?UY~f a [lti~~~-Fina!'JlIdgmen\as i0\ Parcel 131, and it
I /~-1 /-{o?1'~j ~~~ ,fit\ ~
appearing to the Court that the r~( eA~ v:i tOF~~t I~ I n, the Court finding that
the compensatiOn to be paId bytcsoner IS me-ruB aTIIIi?0:saftn,j~1e Respondent, COLLIER
DA VIS, LLC.. and the Court bei~cd@~~rwise fully advis~d'~d~pQ11ises, it is thereupon
"\ f " / '-;/
'\ l)..~"~/': ,\ / .
ORDERED AND ADJUDGE"'-.,milh,'---::-::_',('\_:.:,"
',' Il1~ I n,,:::-/
~--..-::'_._2::__""".-
I, Respondent, COLLIER DAVIS, LLC" shall recover from Petitioner,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, the swn of Two Hundred Thousand and No/lOO Dollars
($ 200,000,(0) for Parcel 131, as full payment for the property interests taken and for damages
resulting to the remainder, if less Ulan the entire property was taken, business damages, and for all
other damages in connection with said parcel.
~.P
COLLIER DA VIS, LLC, shall recover fTom Petitioner Ule swn Ofm" n, ~
!~^
r")~'~
,. (")
,~ro'" 0
_; C
" :D
~: Cri
o
r'
-r),
~-:(-
2\,
"B~
... 9J-:::
~ %\",
-:: ~.
f'.:I
o
.....
=
= ~
-
0
,...,
C")
C"") -'rl
\0 ~r:;:;
=-:'::'-::7
~ ~~c'"
:r ~
9 ~
w
w
2.
~b
","J -T
<ia~
L'q 0
E""~
~'''M
. QJ
" OJ
~c\:'
~
""=t"
0::
C)
.
.
Five Thousand and NollOO Dollars ($25,000.00) for all attorney's fees, expert witness fees and
costs relating to Parcel 131, No other costs and attorney's fees, including supplemental, shall be
awarded in this cause,
3, Petitioner will be entitled to a credit in the amount of$225,000, from the good faith
deposit disbursed in accordance with the Stipulated Order of Taking.
4, The Clerk of this Court shall forthwith disburse the sum of Twenty-Nine
Thousand and Five Hundred and No/IOO Dollars ($29,500.00) remaining from the deposit,
made payable to Petitioner, Collier County, as a refund for Parcel 131, via wire transfer from the
Clerk of Courts to the Board of County Commissioners, Account #336-163656-369802~60101.
.-------
5, Title to Parcel 131 in dFrUi~~ltu~tiO~lileI)t, being fully described in Exhibit
~O\~/~.!'./)'-. '
hdh d' J./ty l'h d'''P ,~:\ th S' I d
"A" attac e ereto an 1I1corpoited'iicrel'!, w lIC veste 111 e tlOn r pursuant to e tlpU ate
Order of Taking dated DeCemb(" l%, ~ Ire, "'fore mod" i, ."",,,,d,
ratified, and confinned, n(~(~Q) 1~~ L i;J
6, COLLIER DA V~"~' will be entitled~~bx~ t ten feet of Parcel 131 for
~~ ,:\.., P<:. C~V
purposes of meeting its landscape D~~~~~e{county Land Development
Code, provided that no vegetative material'br-&~ ,~ve'fu~nts may be placed or installed within
Parcel 131.
7, The Notice of Lis Pendens filed in the above-styled cause and recorded in Official
Record Book 4049, Page 2592 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida be dismissed as to
Parcel No, 131,
8, All proceeds awarded to Respondent, Collier Davis, LLC, are subject to the claims, if
any, of the mortgagee, Malirunore Corporation,
9, This Stipulated Final Judgment is to be recorded in the Official Records of Collier
County, Florida,
C"o.J
~
<..C>
~
<:..?
p..
LC'")
........
~
.....
P::
C>
.
.
. '
DONE AND ORDERED in Naples, Florida, this -Li day of iJIIA~4'i'JkA)' 2007,
Hirr~
C CUlT COURT JUDGE
M-..In'sf
I }" :>V v
conformed copies to:
/Ellen T. Chadwell, Esquire
/Bruce M, Harris, Esquire
/Michael A, Currea, Esquire
/Kevin Hendricks, Acquisition Mgr,n'ransp,
.; Accounting , ~ ~~
y Sa,'JY\ a~]~~\tu1'~;.U;lWv
JOINT MOTION FOR s:r . L./:rB FINAL JUDGMENT
'I'h P , I b 'ul ~~:l-fu-l]' --.!i\/::::, th c -
e attles lere y stJp at~tJ~;:Jlspect y reques~ ' urt to enter e 10regomg
/ I C"--'-. \
Stipulated Final Judgment as to/Par<;~l ~,U=.~_ --::--'..1'\
lis I\~ dayo;l)j"W~rro~L/~)l,)f2)\~\liid\this1f~aYOf &, ,2007,
/ -~'-.)\ ./) Ie ,..\cJl",,),c-<t 1 /11 -'
\ >\ ., ".-' -'\1~7Ai<:l:': Y C/o ef" /A-r- -
R CE M s, ESQUI$,\ ,.k >LI;ENJt, CHADWELL, ESQUIRE
, ar No, 00 3697 vr:"\.'~~-i!0ri~/Bar No. 0983860
HARRIS, HARRIS, BAUERLE &~~.:: ///GQ,~NTY A'lTOR~Y'S OFFICE
1201 EaSIRo?mson Street ......~~. :rr?:--;-.Z \.)~"Bannon T~er BUlldmg
Orlando,l-londa 32801 ....~:.L Cl~,/' 3301 East lammrm TraIl
--..--------
(407) 843-0404- Telephone Naples, Florida 341 12
(407) 843-0444- Facsimile (239) 774-8400 _ Telephone
A HORNEY FOR RESPONDENT, (239) 774-0225 _ Facsimile
COLLIER DAVIS, LLC ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a tme and correct copy of the foregoing Joint Motion on
Stipulated Order of Taking has been fwnished by U,S, Mail to all parties listed below on tillS r
day off1u~ ,2007,
,
AA'^- r:y Ct p~
-
ELLEN T, CHADWELL, ESQUIRE
~~
~-ct
"'-
_0
<""">""
E ':'"""" C')
<!IJ.""'" (")
~J5Q)
~EO)
l:J (]) Gl
a.90CL
=,~
~
--
P::
o
.
.
.
PARCEL 131
Collier Davis, LLC
clo Bruce M, Harris, Esq,
HARRIS, HARRIS, BAUERLE & SHARMA
1201 East Robinson Street
Orlando, Florida 32801
Malinmore Corporation
clo Michael A, Currea, Esq,
8181 NW 36lh Street, Suite 27-C
Miami, Florida 33166
-----"-:--
d/\\l'R CO(jA'~
(~;,>:------ -...~ V)>)~
I U/' " ,'~
~{CCfDJpw ~
~.~~ --' ----~~~~- ~.S'l
\~)'V- !o/
T'" ;-;:, --'/
'- 0'>-, ./. ~<\-/
~.(, ,")-;'------,~' C^\...\;/
"~-!iE C\\~>/
-..------
-..---,",.,
'><
'><
'><
--
.,....,
'-0
.,....,
~
0...
L.C"">
..-4
(V")
--
r::x:;
C>
'><
'><
+-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I The East'30
dtthe
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Per
I
I
-+"-"-"-"-'-"-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IBIT
I
"An
.
PROJECT NO,
PROJECT PARCEL NO.
60101
131
LEGAL DESClfIP'FfON & SKETCH
(NCYr A SURVEY)
etuaf, Non-Exclusive Drainage &, Utility Easement
.
A PARCEl OF lAND MORE PARTlCUlARl Y DESCRIBED AS
t 01 the West 80 feet of the Nor1hwestOuarter (IN( 16) of the Northeast Ouarter (HE 14)
Ouarter (NW 14) 0/ Sedkln 8, T ~ 50 South, Rarge 26 East, CoIIief Coooty, Fbrkia,
LESS the NoIfh 75 feet thereof,
:" "
}-' .-.<\\./
~. f'---'-~--'---"-- C-' 'Ie) ;r'
.......: J I F \ V..'>/
~-....._..--=---,-_.-.-~
SKETCH N'JT 10 sam:
-~~~
3lfeet
1OO5lJ1_""
=::8/13/2009
:::
II..
THU 9: 48
FAX
J;!j001/001
RESIDEr'HLoJ.
, ,
i i
io,l :'J~'1,"O_W. :10
"'"~'''''
5" 9' i~' 's'
lip 'In Is
rh.-~.~tr
MI}:WcUSE
"".,-,5'
,,",
(-c
C!)
)
.~.r.'
'."]
-""
,,..,,
c~) ~JfL~ET. ~{!o~ B
STRE ET TYPE A
SCALE; I" ~ 60'
'"'""''"'''''V'
I i
10': 4.1'I\.o,W. : iG' LESIO[NflAl
""'i~~--'~ t'''' . ---------
':'j ;,' ~,~' :'~'
Ttr--r-1-r
rj=ll ."
\,;j~ ,~ ~;)
em I ..
(c) STREET TYPE C
-' SCALE: 111 = 60'
-'>, .""'~
[ "
- :.: ',?
"" '"
LEGEND
s: Sidewalk
In: Lone
p: Parking
SCALE: 1" = 60'
CONCEPTUAL STREET SECTIONS
DAVIS RESERVE
08,13,09
CHISHOLM
.,,'
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 337 of 407
ORDINANCE NO, 10-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH
INCLUDES TilE 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 ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE DAVIS RESERVE MPUD, THE
PROJECT IS PROPOSING ^ MAXIMUM OF 234
DWELLING UNITS, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS AND A MAXIMUM OF 35,000
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USES,
TilE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 22,83
ACRES, IS TO BE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS
BOULEV ARD (SR 84) AND COUNTY BARN ROAD,
IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE,
WHEREAS, Robert Andrea, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc"
representing Collier Davis LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to
change the zoning c1assificatioll ofthe herein described real property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION QNE:
The zoning classitication of the herein described real property located in Section
8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is, changed from the
Estates (E) Zoning District to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MpUD) Zoning
District for the Davis Reserve MPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through G, all of
Davis Reserve MPUD - PUDZ,2004-AR,6829
REV, 7/27/1 0
Page 1 of2
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 338 of 407
which are attached hereto 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:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State,
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this
day of
,2010,
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E, BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
, Deputy Clerk
FRED W, COYLE, Chairman
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
0~\'\>
,,\\1.-
Heidi Ashton Cicko
Section Chief, Land Use/TranspOltatioll
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit 0:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
List of Allowable Uses
Development Standards
Master Plan
Legal Description
Development Commitments Specific to the Project
Conceptual County Barn Access Detail
Conceptual Street Sections
06-CPS-0039I 175
Davis Reserve MPUD - PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
REV, 7/27/10
Page 2 of2
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14. 2010
Page 339 of 407
EXHIBIT A
LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
A. RESIDENTIAL TRACT CDesianated uRn on the MPUD Master Plan)
1, 1, MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
The maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed within the
Residential Component and Commercial Component of the Davis Reserve
MPUD shall be 234,
1, 2, PERMITTED USES
No building or structure. or pari thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or
land used, in whole or in part. for other than the following;
A. Principal Uses;
I, Multi-family dwellings,
2. Townhouses,
3, Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permilted principal uses, as determined by the
Board of Zoning Appeals (1I8ZAll) by the process outlined in the
LDC,
8, Accessory Uses:
1, Gatehouses, guardhouses, and/or access control structures.
2, Recreational uses, including swimming pools, tennis courts,
volleyball courts, bocce ball courls, shuffle board courts, walking
POtllS and 1Ioils, picnic areas, dock, piers, and gazebos,
3, Recreolionol facilities and buildings including community centers
and club houses for usa by residents within the community. These
facililies may include offices, meeting rooms, restrooms, banquet
holL ond kilchens,
4, Accessory uses ond struc lures customarily ossociated with the
permitted principal uses and sllUctures, including, but not limited
to garages, both attached and detached, carporls, utility
buildings, maintenance shops, and equipment storage,
5, Model units and model soles cenlers,
Revised June 14, 20 J 0
Page 1 of 18
PUDU004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 340 of 407
6, Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the
"BZA" by the process outlined in the LDC,
8, COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE TRACT fDeslanated "MU" on the MPUD Master Plan)
1,1, MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL SQUARE FEET AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
The five-acre Commercial Component, shall not be developed with more
than 35,000 square feet of commercial/office uses, The maximum number
of residential dwelling units allowed within the Residential Component and
Commercial Component of the Davis Reserve MPUD is 234,
1.2 PERMITTED USES
No building or structure, or pari thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or
land used, in whole or parI, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
1, Multi-family dwelling units above commercial units, or in attached
buildings,
2, Allowable commercial uses permitted in the commercial mixed use
component shall be limited to those uses permitted in the C-1, C-2,
and C-3 zoning districts as contained in the Collier County Land
Deveiopment Code, Ordinance 04-4 i, as amended, in effect as of
the dale of adoption of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road
Mixed Use Subdistrict [Ordinance No, 2005-25 adopted on June 27,
2005), unless otherwise provided for in this Section, as follows:
i. Accounting Services (Group 8721 )
ii. Apparel & Accessory Stores [Groups 56] 1-5699)
iii. Architectural, Engineering, Surveying Services (Groups 0781,
8711-8713)
iv, Assisted Living Facilities
v, Attorney Offices & Legal Services [Group 8111)
vi. Auto and Home Supply Store (Group 5531)
vii, Business Repair Service
viii. Business Services (Groups 7311-73 i 3,7322-7338,7361-7379,
7384, 7389)
ix, Child Day Care Services [Group 8351)
x. Churches & Places of Worship
xi. Eating Establishments and Places (Group 5812)
XII, Educational Plants
xiii, Essential Services
xiv, Food Stores (Groups 5411-5499)
xv, General Merchandise Stores (5311-5399)
xvi. Hardware Store (Group 5251)
Page 2 of 18
Revised June 14,2010 PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
----+_._.~-
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 341 of 407
xvii, Health Services (Groups 8011-8049, 8082)
xviii, Home Furniture, Furnishings, Equipment Store (Groups 5712-
5736)
xix, Home Supply Store (Group 5531)
xx, Individual & Family Social Services
xxi, Insurance Agencies, Brokers, Carriers (Groups 6311-6399, 6411)
xxii. Large Appliance Repair Service (Group 7623)
xxiii. Libraries (Group 8231)
xxiv, Management & Public Relations (Groups 8741-8743, 8748)
xxv, Membership Organizations (Groups 8611-8699)
xxvi. Miscellaneous Repair Service (Groups 7629-7631 )
xxvrl. Miscellaneous Retail Services (Group 5912-5963, 5992-5999,
except pawnshops, building malerials, auction rooms, awning
shops, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools,
tombstones, and whirlpool baths)
xxviii, Museums and Art Galleries (Group 8412)
xxix, Non-Depository Credit Institutions (Groups 6111-6163)
xxx, Office Machine Repair Service (Groups 7629-7631)
xxxi. Paint, Glass, Wallpaper Stores (Group 5231)
xxxii, Personal Services (Groups 7211. 7212, 7215,7216,7221-7251.
7291, (7299, limited 10 babysitting bureaus, clothing & costume
rental. dating service, depilatory salons, dief workshops, dress
suit rental, electrolysis, hair removal, genealogical investigation
service) )
xxxiii, Photographic Studios (Group 7221)
xxxiv, Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991)
xxxv, Real Estate (Groups 6531 '.6541)
xxxvi, Security Brokers, Dealers, Exchanges, Services (Group 6211-
6289)
xxxvii. Shoe repair Shops or Shoeshine Pallors (Group 7251)
xxxviii, United States Postol Service (Group 4311, excludes major
distribution centers)
xxxrx, Velerinorian's Office (Groups 0742, 0752, excludes outdoor
kenneling)
xl. Videotape Relllal (Group 784], limited to 1,800 sq, ft. of gross
110m area)
xli, Amusement & Reerealional Services (Group 7911),
xlii. Educolion Services (Groups 8211-8222),
xliii, Fraternal Lodges, Privale Club, or Social Clubs,
xliv. Schools, VocatiollClI (Groups 8243-8299),
xlv, Any other use which is comporaule in nature with lhe
foregoing list of permit led principal uses, as determined by the
Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) thlOugh the process outlined in
I he LDC.
Revised June 14,2010
Page 3 of 18
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 342 of 407
B, Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted
principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to:
I, Essential services designed and operated to provide water, sewer.
gas, telephone, electricity, cable television or communications to the
general public including interim and permanent utility and
maintenance facilities,
2, Pump stations, utility services and facilities, emergency generators,
cable and telecommunication facilities,
3, Utility buildings, maintenance shops, and equipment storage,
4, Recreational uses and facilities, including swimming pools, tennis
courts, volleyball courts, bocce ball courts, walking paths and trails,
picnic areas, gazebos, parks, passive recreational areas, pedestrian
rest area, bathrooms, dock, piers, and shuffle board courts recreation
buildings and facilities including community centers and club houses
for use by residents within the community and may include oftices,
meeting rooms, restrooms, banquet hall, and kitchens,
5, Manager's residences and offices, temporary sales trailers, and
model units,
6, Gatehouses, guordhouses, andior access conirol structures,
7, Water management facilities and related structures,
8, Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the
developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants,
including the necessary accessways, parking areas and related uses
to serve such offices subjecl to the issuance of a temporary use
permit pursuant to the LDC.
9, Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the
"BZA" by the process oullined in the LDC,
C. Prohibited Uses:
], Adult (X-Rated) Video/Movie, l'-lovelty or Book Store,
2, Automotive Services (Group 7549),
3, Gasoline Service Stations (Group 5541),
4, Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens,
Page 4 of 18
Revised June 14, 20 10
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 343 of 407
C, PRESERVE TRACT (Desianated "P" on the MPUD Master Plan)
1.1. PERMITTED USES
No building or structure or port thereof, shall be erecfed altered or used, or
land used in whole or in part, for other than the following, subject to the
issuance of regional, state and federal permits, when required:
A. Principal Uses:
], Nature preserves,
2_ Pervious nature trails and boardwalks, passive recreational areas,
recreational shelters, and other similar uses,
3. Water managemenl structures,
a, A portion of the 5,29 acre preserve area will be used to
temporarily store treated storm water for infrequent events when
run-off exceeds one and one-half inches, The storm water will be
drained back into the storm water managemenl lake as draw
down occurs through the control structure,
4, Any other conservolioll use in occordance with the LDC which is
comparoble in nature with the foregoing uses and which the BZA
determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area,
Revised June 14,2010
rage 5 of 18
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 344 of 407
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Table I in Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the
Residential Component, Standards not specifically set forth herein sholl be those
specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the
site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat.
TABLE I
RESIDENTIAL "R" TRACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TOWNHOUSE
MULTI-FAMILY
CLUBHOUSE/RECREATION
BUILDINGS
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MINIMUM LOT AREA
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
--_.~-
MiNIMUM FLOOR AREA (Per Unit)
MINIMUM SETBACK (External)
From Davis Boulevard ROW
---- -
From East. South, & Wesl MPUD Boundaries
_..~----_.,
MINIMUM SETBACK I (Internal)
--.-----,..
MINIMUM FRONT 10FT
--,.--
MINIMUM SIDE 10FT
MINiMUM REAR 5 FT
MINIMUM PRESERVE 25 FT
I MINIMUM DIST ANCEBETWEEN STRUCTURES---~" ---;j, g,H'
N/A
',/A
700 SF
N/A
N/A
700 SF
N/A
N/A
"fl/A
25 FT
15 FT
25 FT
--~.,-
15 FT
25 FT
15 FT
10 FT
10 FT
5 fT
25 FT
10 FT
10 FT
5 FT
25 FT
I
-_J_
45 FT t-' _45 FT
______"__ 55 FT 55 FT
~~~"~W --- ~: f~ ~~, -
~esl MPU? BoundCl.'ies 15 FT "'" ,15 FT
nlemal) 'r==---
l~:~:~~~ :~__"_~~-- =-~-:~ :;=1~=-:~ :: ,,'""
~N~UMR~R 5FT 5FT
MnjlMUM PRESERVE 10 fT iOFi"--""""-
-.-.--...----,
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Zoned
Aclual
Shall be measured from bock of curb,
pavement.
B,H, ~ Building Height.
1/~ 3.112
:,.; 8.H'
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
- .--~_.._-
Zoned
Actual
ACCESSORY STRUCT
MINIMUM SETBACK lEx
From Davis Boulev
rrom East. South, &
~._---_.._---_._-
MINIMUM SETBACK' (I
_._~.,.._.~--
35 FT
45 FT
20 FT
15 FT
10 FT
----._.~
10 FT
5 FT
10 FT
30 FT
35 FT
II no curb exists,
30 FT
35 FT
---
measurement
shall be
30 FT
35 FT
- --
from edge of
Page 6 of 18
Revised June J 4,2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 345 of 407
GENERAL:
A. Buildings shall primarily front public rights-of-way in order to create a sense
of place and relationship to fhe slreet, Facades shall feature design
elements that break up monotonous walls such as changes in wall plane
(recesses and protrusions), distincf building components and varied roof
forms, The transition between public and private space shall be defined
with elements such as landscaping, low decorative walls/fencing, recessed
entrances, elevation changes and similar features,
B, No structures shall be permitted in the required 20-foot lake maintenance
easemenf,
C. A finished masonry wall or berm, or combination fhereof, but not gates or
similar structures shall be allowed buf not required befween the
Commercial and Residential Components as long as vehicular and
pedestrian traffic remains unobstrucfed,
D, All building exteriors, lighting, sign age, landscaping and visible architectural
infraslructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified, Said unified
architectural theme shall include: a similar architecfural design and use of
similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and
fences/walls to be erected on all of the subject parcels, Landscaping and
streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the subject
sile.
E, Streets and pmking areas shall be designed to promote circulation through
the development. Parking drive lanes shall be interconnected and shall
have no dead-end aisles,
F, No commerciol business signs sholl be permitted within the Residential
Component.
Revised June 14,2010
Poge 7 at 18
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14,2010
Page 346 of 407
B, Table II in Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within
the Commercial Component. Standards not specifically set forfh herein
sholl be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the
dote of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
TABLE II
MIXED-USE "MU"TRACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Building Types
-,.
CommercIal. Mixed Use Mulll-famlly Townhouse
PRINCIPAL USES
MINIMUM LO:L~REA - N/A N/A N/A N/A
A VERAGE LOT WIDTH N/A - , .____.N.!A N/A N/A
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA (Per Unitl I~/A 700 SF 700 SF 700 SE_
MINIMUM YARDS (External)
From Davis Boulevard ROW 25 FT 25 FT ,. 25 FT 25 FT
From Counlv Barn Road ROW 30 FT 30 FT 30 FT 30 FT
From South MPUD Boundary 15 FT 15 FT 15 FT 15FT
-, .~-,----
MII'oJIMUM SETBACK' (Internal)
MINIMUM FRONT 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT
MINIMUM SIDE 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT
-
MINIMUM REAR 5FT 5FT 5 FT 5 FT
MINIMUM PRESERVE 25 FT 25 FT 25 FT 25 FT
"...-,_.. ------.....--.-.- ---..
MIN DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES' Y,BW ll~ 8,\-12 % 8.H2 % B,H2
MAXIMUM HEIGHT - --"'.'--'. -----
Zoned 45 FT 45 FT -- __~? FT 45 FT
Actual 55 n 55 FT 55 FI 55 FT
- -'~-~- ""--
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIOJI'.AR)3 _' 0.25 0,25 N/A N/A
MAX GROSS LEASABLE AREA 4 35,000 SF 35,000 SF N/A N/A
Single Use -
15,000 SF 15,000 SF N/A N/A
Grocery Slare/ Supennarkel4 20,000 SF 20.000 SF N/A N/A
-
ACCESSORY USES ----- ._--~.""
MINIMUM LOr AREA r,/A N/A N/A N/A
A VERAGE LOT WIDTH Nic"_ ~, N/A W~ N/A
MiNIMUM SETBACK (External I -
From Davis Boulevard ROW 25 FT ._~ 25 f_~ 25 FT 25 FT
-------_.-.-,-,.. -"--'-~,-
_--.ir.C>m Coul:!!Y,.!l_",~n Road ROW ..- 30 fT 30 fT 30 FI 30 FT
,..
From South MPUD Boundary 15 fT 15 FT _.~- __,__15Fl 15 FT
MINIMUM SETBACK' (Internal) -
- 10FT-
MINIMUM IRONT 10 fT 1011 10 FT
---.-------....--..--.....-.....--- ----.-----
MINIMUM SIDE 10 II 10 FT 10 If 10 FT
-- -- ~--_._~....__.,-
MINIMUM REAR 5 FT 5FT 5 IT 5 FT
,-.- ~--- -,
MINIMUM PRESERVE 10 II 10 IT 10FT 10 IT
-~-
MIN DISIANCE.!.E.TWEEN S!:.RUCTU~E~ ~_X2 B,H2 - 1/2 B,HJ II.. 6.H2 12 B.H2
MAXIMUM HEIG~. --~- ..~..
___ Zoned 30 FT 30 IT 30 FT 30 FT
-
Actual ---~-_._.- 3511 35 IT 35 FT 35 FT
.--...--- .. ~...._._..-~ ,
3
, - If a commercial only building Is developed wilhin Ihe "MU" Troe!, this applies,
Shali be measured from bock of curb, If no curb exisls. measurement shall be from edge of
pavement.
B,H, = Building Height.
In mixed use buildings Ihe FAR only applies to the cammerciol uses,
Page 8 of 18
Revised June 14, 20 to
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 347 of 407
fhe moximum gross leasable mea in the mixed use buildings only applies to commercial
uses, Ille maximum gross leasable area for commercial uses sholl fatal no more than 35,000
square feef In fhe entire MPUD,
GENERAL:
A. Buildings shall primarily front public rightseof-way in order to create a sense
of place and relationship to the street. Facades shall feature design
elements that break up monotonous walls such as changes in wall plane
(recesses and protrusions), distinct building components and varied rObf
forms, The Iransilion between public and private space shall be defined
with elements such as landscaping, low decorative walls/fencing, recessed
entrances, elevation changes and similar features,
B, No structures shall be permitted in the required 20-foot lake maintenance
easement.
C. A finished masonry wall or berm, or combination thereof. but not gates or
similar structures shall be allowed but not required between the
Commercial and Residential Components as long as vehicular and
pedeslrian traffic remains unobstructed,
D, Streets and parking areas shall be designed to promote ease of circulation
and alternative routes through the development. Parking drive lanes shall
have no dead-end aisles,
E, All building exteriors, lighling, signage, landscaping and visible architectural
infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified, Said unified
architectural theme shall include: a similar architectural design and use of
similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and
fences/walls to be erected 011 all of the subject parcels, Landscaping and
streetscape materials sholl also be similar in design throughout the subject
site,
Revised June 14,2010
Page 9 of 18
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
I
I
I
.,.1
.-.._,-_._.__._~
I
I I
':
I!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I",
12
,<<
1-'
10
15
liil
1>- \
.-...~
J'~l....
! ~ fII i
:~'+I: '~)
10,. I ) <'
IOJ I 'I))
IV! I I (
l~ 1 i J ) <
: a/, I~i : ': < ; i
I ,., '; s:l'
I I jaL! '; <!
! ! I~i S \ .; -f
I 1 llf 1" ,):,
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I:
I 1 ,
I I I
I I
I I
I ,
I i
1 I
I
,
1
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
!
I
'~
J
,
,
\
,
r"""
1
,
L'1
,J
I ~
,go
1l5~
,N<
I~~
1<"
1>-"9;:
I~rn
I I r, ~
l' : ~~
'- ~
1.~Jf
, ~o
~~
~15
)
,
)
::J
"
(
I
i
)
"
,
:> }
~
(! ) !
,\) )
: ; li.J.) ,-
"~~----
1
fA -,. _
({~)~----::::'_:'
.~ ~~07 ~~
'i,J
'\
.
~
.
::J
:;;:
~,. 7 Q--{) c:
I
I
!
,
1
L
-------
"
--
. .
. .
COUNTY BARN ROAD 100% PLANS
-.-.-
--
--
11
~ Z
.,0.'
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
, '~i
' ~
, , g
~~
'o~
~~
,~~
8~
~._~"",..,.,.
~
~ ~~~ ,
g
-/1-lH<+! ~ 0
g:~lG~ ,n
":.nN.n "
"~
-2'..E.. ~!l:, "'
~ "-
~ ~
r .
, ~ i ~ 0
-i
>~ "
I~~~ ~~ ~ 0
~~ ' ~
~o~ ~~.~ .
~~~ ~h ~
~ ~~:~
l l'ic ~G
~~ ~'. ~~
~$il i1~;:. c:a~
",' i3~O ~u
~fi <~~ ~~
~:Il ~1ii9t ~~
@~. ~~.~ ~l:s
~.~ ".~ ~~
o3.~ ~"'F w""
~;~ ~~~ ~'i
I ~::~ ~~~ :5~~
, I ~ <'" mo. 5~~
I lo.oU: 0 0 ""S:
J ~~~ ~~~" ~~2 <i
" "
--
--
.....
--
--
-:::
~~~
<",
91c:ajl
ffi'" d
~~i~ ~
~n '
,.~ w '"
;~~~ ffi ~
~~w~ ~ f ~ ~
~~~~ ~ m[~l
lEiFi~1!!
l:l!lI'>lIl~
~~~~
515a
<<.
"
/ c:
nJ
I, !!"
,WI
l:t"~i:
!I"~~
:ili!i
"'.1
!':i !
!h!~:
!~~I:l
IPI"
Hi1d -
"'l~l
~~g ~i~:l'J8~
l:1 "'ii;"""''''21
dO . .h
"oll. ~~~~o
..Sz d O:ll!
J~ z~
gd~~~~~~~
Ol
('oJ
OJ
lO
I
n-:
<{z
1<(
..r..J
00..
o
<'In-:
. I uJ
UNI-O
.. olf).-
" <(0
1-:)::;:<'1
_CL
~O--'W
:1::)<(z
xCL::J :)
w:;:Ef--'
CL
w~
>v
n-:Z
wO
(f1U
w
n-:
(f1
5
~ <(
"
u
:!
'9
<
n
.
~
3
o
u
~
a
"'l;J\"'l;'"
'E"'Et~
~~~EU
.~ ::J.- t:1Il
~ ~.
.5~Q'~.r
~~L.16
uJlg a::
o
...",EE
a;8.~
~~.g'~
:~i~
';7;'~.,= Ii
E.!:"..i~
ij>l~g,
ij.!gij
..<: .....
0. ~i
'I
w
E
u
~
~
(!)~ ~~
~< ~~
<iffi~ ~.~.~
~W::> t; Q~
",i!;~ IL 8"
<9~oug! f::
UUJO~..JI 15]
III~ <~
vit
!!l
nz
SHEET 1 or 1
AlE: NO.: OVl04
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14,2010
Page 349 of 407
EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, LESS THE WEST 50 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 Of THE NW 1/4, AND
LESS THE NORTH 75 FEET, (LESS AND EXCEPT PORTION WAS NOT PROVIDED IN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
AND
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 5.0 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, (LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE
NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF - NOT INCLUDED IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION),
AND
THE W 1/2 OF 10 1/2 OF N 1/2 OF S 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
AND
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TO\VNSHIP 50 SOUTIl, It.-\~~~GE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING TIIEREr'RO~v1 TIlE
NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF,
THE NE 1/4 or TI-IE SF 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
ALL THE ABOVE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONTAINING 22,83 ACRES OF LAND MORE OF LESS,
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERV AIlONS OF RECORD,
Revised June 14,2010
Page J I of 18
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829., DA VIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 350 of 407
EXHIBIT E
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT
1. TRANSPORTATION
A, The Developers completion of commitment "B" below shall satisfy
mitigation requirements of Policy 5,1 of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan, and shall further satisfy proportionate share
requirements of the East Central Transportation Concurrency Management
Area as otherwise required by the Land Development Code,
B, The developer, his successors, or assigns agrees to contribute funding to the
Collier County Transportation Services Division 10 install and implement an
intelligent traffic managemenf system at two intersections located along
the Davis Boulevard corridor, which is a hurricane evacuation route, The
total cost of this contribution shall be no greater fhan $110,000,00 for the
signalization improvements to both intersecfions, Payment shall be required
at time of first Site Development Plan or Plat approval.
C, Payment in lieu for sidewalks and bike lanes for County Barn Road frontage
sholl be required, The amount shall be determined utilizing FDOT's 2006
Transportation Costs, as amended, Payment shall be required prior to
County approval of the first deve!opnlent order.
D. The Developer shall contribute his fair share towards the intersection
improvements at Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard, Fair share
shall be determined by measuring the project's traffic as a percentage of
the increased in1ersection capacity, Payment shall be required prior to
County approval of the first development order,
E, A six foot sidewalk along the Davis Boulevard frontage'must be provided
prior to the issuance ot the first Certificate of Occupancy, If the required
sidewalk is constructed by an entity other than the developer, the
developer shall be required to make payment in lieu utilizing FDOT's 2006
Transportation Costs, as amended,
F. No certiticates of occupancy sholl be issued until one of the following
scenarios occurs:
], Substantial completion of Santa Barbara Boulevard extension (from
Davis Blvd, to Ratllesnake Hammock Road, County project number
60091); and sufficient capacity becomes available on County Barn
Road 10 accommoda1e this development, as demonstrated in the
Page 12 of 18
Revised June 14,2010 PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
<""..._--~ ,.._~--.~.-
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 351 of 407
current AUIR or by traffic counts performed by the Developer and
approved by the county,
2, Widening of County Barn to four lanes along the entire project frontage
on County Barn Road, including all County Barn/Davis Boulevard
intersection improvements (four-lane County Barn Road; six-lane Davis
Blvd; associated turn ianes included in the County's design plans,
County project number 60101). If the intersection improvements are
completed by Collier County, FOOT, or parties acting on behalf of either
entity, then the developer is required to contribute its' fair share towards
these intersection improvements, Payment shall be required prior to
County approval ot the tirst development order, except as provided in
"G" below,
G, In order to receive Certificates of Occupancy prior to completion of either
the Santa Barbara Extension or County Barn Road widening by Collier
County, FOOT, or parties acting on behalf of either entity, the developer
may eleci to provide mitigation by doing the following:
1, Accelerating the planned improvements to County Barn Road outlined
in scenario F, 2 above, AND
2, Completing either at the two following options:
a, Agreeing to accept, ottenuate, and treat stormwater runoff for water
quality from all lanes of County Barn Road for the length of the
project frontage, OR
b, Contributing funding to the Collier County Transportation Services
Division to install and implement an intelligent traffic management
syslem at two additional intorsections along the Davis Boulevard
curridor, which is a hurricone evacuation route, The total cost of this
contribution sholl be no greater than $110,000,00 for the signalization
improvements to both intersections,
H, Any combinalion of allowed uses stoted in Exhibit A of this PUD shall not be
allowed to exceed the maximum square footage or units listed for each
category of use, The trip ~lencratiun stoted in the Traffic Impact Study [TiS]
used for the opprovol of this zoning action shall be construed as a
maximum trip gener-ation (5,035 iotol, unadjusted daily two-way trips, and
325 adjusted PM Peak hour two-way irips) for ony combinotion of the
allowed uses,
Revised June 14,2010
Page 13 of 18
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 352 of 407
2, WATER MANAGEMENT
A. Preliminary design indicates the culvert under Davis Boulevard can be
connected to the water management system of the Davis Reserve project
and the flow passed through the Davis Reserve project without adverse
impact to Davis Boulevard, The intent is for the storm water management
lake to be along the northern property line close to the culvert so that the
culvert and lake can be connected, If in final design, it is not possible to
make this connection, a drainage easement shall be provided by owner to
the County at no cost to the County within 30 days of the issuance of the
first development order to allow storm water to bypass the Davis Reserve
site and outfall to the County Barn storm water system, The size of the
easement shall be determined during the SOP phase of the project. This
connection will also be included in the Environmental Resource Permit
(ERP),
B, The project site is an exporter ot storm water during a 100-year 3-day event
and compensating storage is not required,
3, PLANNING
A, Sidewalks and access drives within the mixed use componeht will extend to
the boundaries of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use
Subdistrict to promote interconnection with adjacent properties,
B, Pedestrian and bicycle access sholl be provided by owner to both County
Barn Rood and Davis Boulevard,
C. All buildings shall be interconnected with ground level pedestrian
walkways,
0, Compliance to applicable zoning and sub-district standards and criteria
sholl be verified during the design and Site Development Plan (SDP) phase
of the project.
4, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
A. A minimum of 10% of the overall residential dwelling unit density sholl be
affordable-workforce housing units provided for those earning less than or
equal to 80% of the median household income for Collier County and
another minimum of 10% of the overall density sholl be affordable-
workforce housing units provided for those earning greater than 80%, but
no greater than 100% of the median household income for Collier County,
B, Developer shall enter info on agreement with the Board of County
Commissioners for implementation of the required affordable-workforce
housing units prior 10 development. Due to the complexity of the various
Page 14 of 18
Revised June 14, 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
-,-..",~~---,_.,
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 353 of 407
subsidy programs that are needed to develop the atfordable _ workforce
housing units, and the availability at the time of development and the
need to reflect the actual conditions relating to the housing and mortgage
market. this agreement shall be due prior to the issuance of the first building
permit.
5, SUNSETTING PROVISION
A. Pursuant to Exhibit E, 1, F, of this PUD, actions of the County which delay
and/ or cause the failure to complete the roadway capacity
improvements, or to otherwise perform actions which result in providing the
necessary roadway capacity or other requirements (thus allowing C.O,
issuance) shall not be deemed to be an action of government pursuant to
10.02,13, D of the LDC as amended, and thus will not cause the suspension
of the duration of the sunsetting timeframes,
6, ENVIRONMENTAL
A. This project shall be subject to EAC approval prior to approval of the first
Site Development Plan or finol plat/construcfion plans, Specifically, the
developer shall ensure the fOllowing:
1, That the site plans demonstrate that the hydrology of the preserve area
shall be maintained or enhanced; and
2, Stormwater shall not be discharged below the existing seasonal high
water level.
7, General
A. Building permits for commercial development shall not be issued for greater
than 20,000 square feet of floor area prior 10 issuance of building permits for
a minimum of 91 dwelling units, inclusive of the required proportionate
number of affordable-workforce housing units,
B, Certificates of Occupancy for commercial development shall not be issued
for greater Ihan 20,000 square feet of floor area prior to issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy for a minimum of 91 dwelling units, inclusive of
the required proportionate number of affordable-workforce housing units,
C. For all residential dwelling units exceeding the minimum of 91 units, the
required proportionate number of affordable-workforce housing units shall
be constructed concurrent with market rote dwelling units,
D, The commercial mixed-use component will contain residential units,
Revised June 14,2010
Page 15 of 18
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
1-- --
I
I
I--
I
I
I
I
L.___
1""--------
I
lG
0::
~
I!!
<
'"
x
o
0::
"-
"-
<
-H
;,.
I'"
-
-H
g
~
I ~
I ~!
-----l-----~ I ~~ T
,,15
~~
B~
g
L
-H
'"
en
'b
'"
0::
>-
~-
<
'"
x
o
0::
"-
e;:
"-
-"
~i5
~t
'b
c;;
>-
..J
I!! in
< N
'" a:
~ @
"- <
"- '"
< x
<'">
ii:
"-
"-
<<
-H
j-..
'"
-'"
'"
~Ol-
flJ~g
"'0"
CJI-f:
Z~i!i
1"1"<
!!l!1;:,,-
Ij",
!__;fl
~--
r----
~e
~ii:T
ZO
o~
uen
~tj
0<
"-I-
Oz
g:~
-H
'"
OJ
\
i5~~
"I ~2&i
. O~~ ;fl
~ 5 ~
0::
>-
~
::Ii
X
o
0::
"-
e;:
SNVld %001 ovo~ N~V8 AlNf100
~~,.-.,.,-,;."'-~.--
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14 2010
age 54 0
-
d
Vl
ION
NO
",-
a)~
1-0.
"0
"'...
~~
<<",
"'0
~
Vl
~
U
<<
I-
>-Z
<'"
::Ii~
o~
~~
"''''
0::
F!I!!
<111
z'"
~;E
-'u.
<<0
F'",
fb:!
(.)1"
;;;;'"
oj!'
>-1-
;z!<
o~
"'Z
~'" '
~~~
z~F
o;;s<
lII5!g
15",[1:
a~<
OSz
-lfr1:'i
~ <0::"-
~ ....:
Z
I
,- - - -- --I
1
\
-- - - ---I
I
-__J
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
~
3NVl :JNINilru
lVrud30NOO 03S0dOild
"
I
I
~
I
~
~~ nh~i
~.1I /U~i
~ ~' ~.~~
~
01
:1i
..
,--..
01
N
<XJ
<0 -J
1 <.
~ t-'
<( w
1 0
~ W
O-JW
~~~
II-U
N~<(
OW
=>oz
o..z~
'-"0<(
~ow
ffi C
U) .
W Z
~ =>
o
(f) U
5
<(
o
~
i
DU! RI
~~"l ~~
J2~J
E,
..
,
"
!lHEET 1 (If'" 1
FLE ttO.l 02.0204
'"
;;!5-
~~"
olltz
~l:lz I
",15'"
a.u~
+I
~
~I
Ol
g~>- ~- I
T~~~T; -
Ol-Z ---
ZVlS2
Il'FF!l ~
_ 1~~a.1 I '
"'CD I
_L-
oJ +
oJ +
+I
'-t
...
~-~:~ I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I: I ~
0:
'" I I z
a. :s
0 I
'" I D-
a.
I ..,
~ 0
I 0
ffi
on I 4< a
~ '" '"
"' 0
on I '" 0:
5' I z
<< ~
0 I I
CD
I I I:
z
I 3
I I
I
I Ii \; '* tt
I
I Ii \;'* tt
I I
jJ
a~V^3ln08 S!AVa
,.
tt
tt
--==---
Agenda Item N
December 14 0, 8A
age. ~2010
\
N
>-
>-15
"''''
"'n.
~~
",'"
",0
~I:!
~v;
'"
;;FE
-',,-
<<0
~'"
f:J'"
uF
15",
uFE
>->-
-'",
Bf;:!
'"
~15 .
oni!15
zUlF
Q~('i
~~ir
",,,,a.
Ei~<
,:I ::!~:;
1= <a::[l.
o
z ""'
----==-
...J
m <(
N I-
co UJ
'" 0
I UJ
a:: Z
<( <(
I ...J
....
<l o...Jz
::l IJ.. 0<(0::
! ffiZ~~
~ :z:g~1:3
i':'la.ze
.....wo<
>u....
e5 zl
Vl 0::
w <(
a: (D
Vl ~
5 z
<( ::>
o 0
U
UHf n!~
~Q.51 ~I
J~li
E'
...
~
",U) r
-'~~ B:
<w-, !f I
t;;~~ s~"~
~~Z(jRf t1l
ow8..~ ei
l1 ~.
81<
"
C-=~
=-
~-=
- =~
~=
---
=--
_ SHEET 2 tF 2
FIL NO.; 01.204
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 356 of 407
i I
+ 34'R.OW. \J3.
s'- 9' '24' 'S'
'! p In I,
f i I rr
~ESIOENllA.l
$"d'''''
M,,,,,.5
RE510ENTw'
I ,
10.1 34'R.O.VI, Lo'
,< -
MIXEO-USE
5'_
I
S' '/' 2~'
Ill' In
111
O STREET tYPE A
SCALE, I" ~ 60'
0E STREET TYPE B
~ SCALE: 1'=60'
n
L .....
1m....'
i
RESIDENllAL '':t0'1 43'R.O.W.
,~
-_._---
5 9' ~4'
~ I p In
1\1
RESIDENTIAL
S' "'"
@ ~~l~E~, ~y:O~ C
lEGEND
s: Sidewalk
In: lone
p: Parking
EXHIBIT G
CONCEPTUAL STREET SECTIONS
DAVIS RESERVE
08,13,09
SCALE: 1" = 60'
CtllSllOLM
..',"...'_....
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 357 of 407
PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENT EXHIBITS
COLLIER DAVIS
PDUZ-2004-AR-6829
DAVIS RESERVE
Bee 12/14/10
Agenda Item 8A
638108 v _ 0] \ 1139] 6.U001
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item No, 8A
850 PARK SHlilal:IDlUllrer 14, 2010
TRIANON CENTRr-arJjj~.mRl07
NAPLES, FL 34103
239,649,2714 DIRECT
239,649,6200 MAIN
239.261.3659 FAX
rpritt@ralaw.com
www.ralaw.com
I_&)ANDRESS II
A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
To:
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Robert D, Pritt, Attorney for Petitioner (Lvi?
DATE:
December 3, 2010
RE:
CC:
PDUZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve
Planning Staff
Legal Department
Petitioner's Supplement
BOCC Hearing 12-14-10
Petitioner offers this Supplement to the evidence in the Record provided by Planning Staff,
Background: This 22 acre proposed Mixed Use Planned Unit Development has been in
permitting (Comprehensive Plan!1ing and then Zoning) since 2004, Organized opposition from
the neighborhood has resulted in a high number of ex parte communications with decision-
makers at staff, Planning Commission and County Commission levels, Therefore, the following
points are offered that may be otherwise be lost in the hearing process,
I, The overwhelming opposition to the proposed development as articulated in the
Neighborhood Meetings is based upon the requirement for 20% affordable housing,
Language included not wanting "the kind of people it may attract", a "Miami developer", a
developer of "that kind of housing" and other code words for unlawful discrimination or an
inducement for unlawful decision-making,
2, The County Commission created this Mixed Use Subdistrict and imposed the' affordable
housing requirement on the developer, (who agreed), in June, 2005, when affordable housing
was a top state and local priority, An excerpt of that Commission transcript is attached as
Exhibit A,
3, This is the only project in Collier County that has an affordable housing requirement in the
Growth Management Plan to be applied to the property, A copy of the Davis-County Barn
Subdistrict is attached as Exhibit B,
NEW YORK CLEVELAND
WASHINGTON, D, C, TALlAHASSEE
638073 v_03 \ 113916,0001
TOLEDO
ORlANDO
AKRON
FORT MYERS
COLUMBUS
NAPLES
CINCINNATI
FORT LAUDERDALE
/
~......".""""".......,..,....
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 359 of 407
MEMORANDUM
(PAGE20F4)
4, The petition went to the Planning Commission in 2009 with a positive staff report, except for
calculation of bonus density for affordable housing which was to be left for County
5, Commission interpretation, See Exhibit C, Recommendation (page (23) of May 7, 2009
Staff Report) , The complete Staff Report is in the County packet.
6, At that hearing, and under imminent threat of denial by the Planning Commission, Developer
agreed to resubmit to reduce the density so as not to request bonus density (from 286 to 234),
7, In the current submittal, Developer reduced the residential density and also reduced
commercial from the maximum allowable due to neighborhood concerns, The proposal will
not allow anything anywhere close to a medium or big-box, It will only allow for businesses
that will serve the neighborhood,
8, Due to concerns of neighbors over affordable housing, Petitioner's legal counsel presented a
Public Petition on January 12, 2010, to BOCC asking for a County-initiated amendment to
the GMP to eliminate the affordable housing requirement. (Anticipating the then likelihood
of passage of Amendment 4,) The County declined at that time, See Exhibit D, Public
Petition notice (Item 6a),
9, There is no assurance that the County Commission would approve such an amendment today
even in light of the over-supply of affordable housing, The fees and cost to file a private
request is prohibitive,
10, The Supplemental Staff Report for the current proposal to the Planning Commission was
again positive, with details to be resolved in the SDP process, It is in the County's packet.
II, At the September 2, 20 10 hearing, the Planning Commission chair at the last-minute raised
some 25-30 issues that were overwhelmingly concerning Site Development issues, The
Board spent most of the hearing time delving into these issues, See Planning Commission
minutes (which includes transcript, PP, 1- 74, which is in the County packet.)
12, Planning Commission's delving into Site Development Plan issues was beyond the scope of
the Planning Commission's authority, as that is delegated by the County Commission to the
administrative staff.
638073 v_03 \ 113916.0001
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 360 of 407
MEMORANDUM
(PAGE 30F4)
13, The Planning Commission Chair both at the hearing and since, has expressed the real issue,
his disagreement with the need for affordable housing, See Planning Commission minutes
and see Newspaper Viewpoint authored by the Chair (Exhibit E), He is entitled to his
personal opinion, which indeed may even be correct, but this discloses the real issue for
denial, (disagreement with the GMP subdistrict, i,e" the law governing this District) as
opposed to whether this Petition is consistent with the law (GMP),
14, In quasi-judicial proceedings the Boards must apply the law correctly, whether they agree
with it or not. In this case, both the impartiality requirement of tlle federal and state
constitutions and the correct application of the law standard in case law were compromised,
There is an inherent conflict where, as here, the same Commission has both legislative and
quasi -judicial duties,
15, The level of site development review required in this case by the Planning Commission is
unprecedented in Collier County, Attached as Exhibit F are copies of approved Master
Concept Plans with far less detail than being required and scrutinized by the Planning
Commission in this case,
16, Notwithstanding this, the developer agreed at the hearing on the record to nearly all changes,
and reiterates to this Board its willingness to include those changes he agreed to, A copy of
the Developer's Response is attached as Exhibit G,
17, The primary disputed issue has to do with siting of internal parking and roadways, as the
staff's conclusion would ruin the GMP-required new urbanism type of development. The
staffs new interpretation of that GMP subdistrict standard is clearly erroneous, The planner
(not being an attorney) testified to the intent of that GMP provision, notwithstanding that the
language is clear and unambiguous, This is a common error for non-attorneys and even some
attorneys, but the rule in Florida is that if the language is clear and unambiguous, that is
conclusive as to legislative intent and it is unnecessary and improper to go beyond the
language to seek intent.
18, After the Planning Commission hearing recommendation for denial, the staffrevised its Staff
Report to this Board, no longer supporting this Petition, Developer is unaware of any basis
for a staff to change its position just because the Planning Commission recommends denial,
or to recommend a denial on any other basis to this Board, Nothing has changed,
638073 v_03 \ 113916.0001
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 361 of 407
MEMORANDUM
(PAGE 4 OF 4)
19, The denial of this Petition would leave the property with Estates zoning and incompatible
with this Subdistrict. This leaves the property undevelopable in accordance with the GMP,
20, (Note: The Plarming Commission viewed architect's typical elevations and photos, in
response to curiosity on part of Commissioners as to what a development SDP might look like,
but exhibits may not be in County's file, Architect will bring to BOCC hearing,) Petitioner is
very flexible in meeting Commission's preference as to style if that is an issue,
RDP/ca
638073 v_03" 113916,0001
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 362 of 407
June 7, 2005
don't know what was wrong with the same -- the affordable housing
and the workforce was in the base density offoUT.
MR. GOLD MEYER: The difference is I was trying to mitigate
the total number. If we get up to a higher number, I was trying to
limit __ you know, mitigate the total number on the, you know, much
denser project by putting in those minimums that you were concerned
that we might try to avoid if we just developed the base density.
cHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I read farther on in the text
towards the backgf this large book that was presented to us where
there's a possibility that there could be a density of what, 238 units?
MR. GOLDMEYER: It would be probably higher than that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Be higher than that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Higher than that?
cHAIRMAN COYLE: Only if we grant it. We don't grant it
now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that, but it's written
in tl1ere that there's that potential of at least 238. So you're looking
at, as Commissioner Henning is looking at, we're only looking at nine
units of affordable housing and nine units of workforce housing on
top ofa 238 -- possibly a 238-unit project.
MR. MURRAY: No, there would be 10 percent above that base
density. You'd start with the nine and nine and then anything above
the 71 or 91 would be 10 percent workforce and 10 percent
affordable. So if it was 238, then you would subtract out the base
density and then --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not what the owner said. The
owner said it would only be IO percent if he goes above the base.
Because he's trying to limit his risk ifhe goes above the base. That's
what I understood him to say.
So he's guaranteeing the 18 -- or the nine and nine on the base
density, and he's saying he will give an additional 10 percent on any
Page 93
Exhibit "A"
Page 1 of7
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 363 of 407
June 7, 2005
bonus density he is granted. That's what I heard him say.
Now, am I wrong? Am I wrong or right?
MR MURRAY: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I'm right.
MR. MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, is there anyone here who
has a motion that will support that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to support
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the understanding that
we're not approving any density above the 91 at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct.
Okay. Commissioner Coletta has made a motion to approve. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, seconded by COmmissioner
Fiala.
The motion is to approve, with the stipulation that 10 percent of
the base density will be affordable housing and 10 percent of the base
density will be workforce housing, and that if in the event bonuses
are granted above the base density, 10 percent of that housing will be
affordable housing. Okay?
.MR. MUDD: And 10 percent will be workforce,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, so you are going to put --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then I was wrong.
MR, MUDD: And at no time will you get less than nine units
affordable and nine units workforce.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, is everybody clear on
that? Okay, the motion maker is and I think the seconder is. So is
there any further discussion?
Page 94
Exhibit "A"
Page 2 of 7
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 364 of 407
June 7, 2005
Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the only difference is this,
we're already predetermined what the affordable housing percentage
is above the base density. Affordable and workforce housing above
the base density. That's the only difference between my motion and
the motion that's on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That wasn't my understanding of your
motion, but ifthat's what you say, that's okay with me. So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But any time that we -- any
extra density that we have given lately is not market rate, but here
we're saying yeah, 10 percent workforce, 10 percent affordable and
80 percent market rate. I just think it goes against the grain of what
we approved in the recent past.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which one are you talking about, the
base density?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm talking above.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We haven't approved anything above.
We might never approve anything above.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's true. You're
absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this motion has nothing to do with .
that. It's just a stipulation that if we should, by chance, by a very,
very slim chance, if we ever approved any density here, then it would
have to contain some -- at least some --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten percent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At least 10 percent. Actually, 20
percent --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twenty percent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, 20 percent. So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'm comfortable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, everybody's okay?
Everybody understands where we are?
Page 95
Exhibit "A"
Page 3 of 7
,."._"",-"
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 365 of 407
June 7, 2005
Okay, all in favor, please signify by saying aye,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Don't come back for any base density -- I mean, any increases in
density,
MR. MUDD: The next petition is petition -- do you have
something to say, David?
MR. WEEKS: If you don't mind. I'm still not clear, and I'd
need to, of course, make sure we're really clear on the language. And
I believe you're -- what you approved was that 10 percent of the base
density would be affordable housing and 10 percent would be
workforce housing.
The base density of this project, assuming they develop the full
five acres that they're allowed, well, subject to rezoning, of course,
but if they develop the full five acres at commercial, then they'll have
17.83 acres ofresidentiaI. That's times four, the base density is
where we come up with the 71 units.
In your motion then it sounds to me that you're saying of those
71 units, that's the base density, 10 percent will be affordable and 10
percent will be workforce, And then you went on to say that any
bonuses granted at the rezone time, 10 percent of those must be
workforce and 10 percent affordable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's absolutely right.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Are you -- no, wait a minute, David, now I'm
confused. And I want to make sure I've got it right. He said 71 __
Page 96
Exhibit "A"
Page 4 of 7
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 366 of 407
June 7, 2005
there's two parcels. ;
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's two parcels.
MR. MUDD: There's mixed use, okay, on five acres that has
residential over the business. Now I would assume, and maybe I'm
wrong, that those will probably -- those residential units will be the
affordable and the workforce ones, just because you've got some cost
leveraging you're doing with the commercial property underneath,
okay? That's a total of 20 units that are over there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: T~t's right.
MR. MUDD: Then you've got 17.8 acres over here, okay, and
I'll quit using my fmgers, okay, but you goftwo parcels over here --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just be careful which fmger you use.
MR. MUDD: And they're saying it has a minimum -- as a
minimum offoUT units per acre, a total of 71 units. So when you
said, and I believe the petitioner said that ifhe is only coming in with
the commercial piece mixed use and the residential piece, which
gives him a total residential unit count of91, that he would bring in
10 percent affordable and i 0 percent workforce. And we talked
about nine units of each.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: And then he said, and if! come in and get a
density bonus for affordable housing, and let's say 16 units per acre,
or whatever that's going to be, and they get above the 91 but no less
than the nine and nine, that he would put 10 percent affordable and
10 percent workforce aside, so you could get a greater number of
those particular units.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Still sounds like an echo to me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Except for the word no less
than.
MR. WEEKS: So there's an actual commitment then that in the
commercial component of the project, they will develop residential.
Thank you for that clarification.
Page 97
Exhibit "A"
Page 5 of 7
~._,-~_..
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 367 of 407
June 7, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You got it?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Got it.
Commissioner, that brings us to No.6, which is Petition
CPSP-2004-7. It's a petition requesting amendments to the future
land use element and future land use map and map series, Golden
Gate area master plan element text and future land use map capital
improvement element and the potable water and sanitary sewer
subelements of the public facilities element to include potable water
and sanitary sewer subelements, capital improvement element,
Golden Gate area master plan, future land use element No.5, future
land use map, and No.6, future land use map series.
And Mr. David Weeks will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion? We have a
motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, I think a second from
Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything you need to read into the
record, David?
MR. \VEEKS: No, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 98
Exhibit "A"
Page 6 of 7
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 368 of 407
June 7, 2005
cHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
ClWRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. .
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now I need the board to -- you've
adopted five of the six. Now I need the board to give a motion to
transmit the adopted petitions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to transmit the
adopted petitions?
C011MISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas to approve
forwarding the adopted petitions.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
C011MISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COlvilvITSSI01'i'ER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask if you wouldn't
mind if you'll leave your binders here, we'll be glad to pick those up
to reuse them. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we are adjoumed. Thank you very
much.
Page 99
Exhibit "A"
Page 7 of 7
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 369 of 407
(XIII)(XV) 14, Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict
This Subdistrict comprises approximately 22.83 acres and Is located at the
southeast corner of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Intersection.
The Intent of the Subdistrict Is to provide
for a development that Incorporates tradltfonal neighborhood and mlxed-use
neighborhood design features, as well as recommendations of the Collier
County Community Character Plan. These
include: pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly streets: a park, small
plazas and other open spaces; and, a mix of residential and neighborhood
commercial uses. Integration of residential and commercial uses In the same
building Is encouraged.
The commercial component shall be interconnected with the residential
component, and the commercial component shall be conveniently located
to serve residents In the nearby surrounding area. Pedestrian and bicycle
access will be provided so as to afford access from neighboring
communities to the commercial uses, residential nelghborhood(s), and
open spaces and paths within the Subdistrict.
Projects within this Subdistrict shall comply with the
following standards and criteria: a. Commercial
Component
1. The commercial component shall front County Barn Road
and Davis Boulevard.
2. The frontage of the commercial' component shall be no
greater than twice Its depth.
3. The commercial component shall be no larger than 5 acres
In size and shall not exceed 45,000 square feet of gross
leasable floor area.
4. No single commercial use in the commercial component
shall exceed 15,000 square feet of gross leasable floor
area, except that a grocery store or supermarket shall
not exceed 20,000 square feet of gross leasable floor
area.
5. Allowable commercial uses in the commercial component shall be
limited to those uses permitted in the C-l, Co2, and C-3 zoning
districts as contained In the Collier County Land Development
Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended. In effect as of the date of
adoption of this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005-25 adopted on
June 27, 2005).
6. A common architectural theme shall be used for all commercial
buildings.
7. Pedestrian connections shall be provided between all buildings.
8. Residential uses are allowed and may be located above commercial uses in
the same building or within an attached building. Residential density
within the commercial componert is allowed at 4 dwelling units per acre
and shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage in the Subdistrict.
9. The maximum floor area ratio for commercial uses Is 0.25.
b Residential Component
C:\Oocumenls and Settlngs\bodinejudi\Local Settings\Temporary Internet FHes\ContenlOUtlOOk\U72BYGXO\NAPLE5-
#604660-v1-Colller-Davts Petftion.DOC
604660v_Ol \ 113916.0001- Exhibit "B"
Page 1 of 2
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 370 of 407
1. Acreage to be used for calculating residential density In the
residential component of the Subdistrict Is exclusive of the
commercial component and of any acreage for a use with a mldential
equivalency, such as an ALF.Adult Uvlng Facility. Eligible density .
shall be as determined by application of the Density Rating System.
2. Service roads and alleys shall be integrated Into the residential
component of the Subdistrict.
c General Criteria
1. Rezoning Is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD.
2. Parking areas shall be Internal to the site and be screened from
County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard.
3. Common stairs, breezeways or elevators may Join Individual
buildings.
4. Trails and boardwalks may be provided In preservation areas for
hiking and educational purposes, If consistent with applicable local,
state and federal environmental protection regulations.
5. The Subdistrict shall Include a park, small plazas and other types of
open space.
6. The number and type of access points shall be limited, as deemed
appropriate during review of subsequent development orders, so as to
minimize disruption of traffic flow on Davis Boulevard and County Barn
Road.
7. Development within the Subdistrict shall be encouraged to use a
grid street system, or portion thereof, so as to provtde multiple route
alternatives.
8. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access to the Subdistrict shall be
provided.
9. A vehicular interconnection shall be provided between the
residential and commercial components of the Subdistrict.
10. Both pedestrian and bicycle Interconnections shall be
provided between the residential and commercial components of
the Subdistrict.
(XV)11. A minimum of 91 residential units shall be developed in the Subdistrict (this
reflects the Density Rating System"s base density of four dwelling units per
acre, applied to the total site acreage). Fer tile prejest"s tetal deRslty
wAetAer it is tAe minimllm ef 91 dwelling IInlW, er a greater amellRl as
allewed by ttle Density Rating System density benlls pre'/islens ami appre...ed
via rBz9Alng a mlAlml:lm. sfteR per;e~ (1g,~) Myst be a#erdalale 'l:aFkfer;e
AeIlSiR!) II nits pre'/ided fer IAese earning less tAan er eEll/al te 80~/. eftAs
median llel/seAeldlnGeme for Cslller eel/my an" ansther miRlmum sf teR
perGeRt (10%) ml/st lie a"srdable wsrkfsree Aellslng IInlts pre'.'ided fer
these e3rnin!) !)reater tAan 80~/.. lIut ne greater ttJan 100~/., eftAe .median
R9wseheld iRseme fer Callier C91:1Rty.
12. The rezone ordinance Implementing this Subdistrict shall set forth a
provision to Insure construction of this minimum number of dwelling
units. and type of units, such as a cap on the commercial floor area that
may be Issued a certificate of occupancy prior to construction of the
minimum number, and type, of residential units.
C:\Documents and Settlngs\bodlnejudl\Local Settlngs\Temporary Internet Files\ContenlOuUook\U72BYGXO\NAPt.ES-
#60466o-v1-Colller-Davis Petition.DOC
604660 ,_01 \ 113916.0001- Exhibit "a"
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 371 of 407
commercial space would be 011 site and he would have to check on dle types' of establislunents
regarding the school.
4. Participants also wanted to Imow what type of residential livillg facilities were planned for this
development. Shaun responded that 20 percent of the residential pl'Operty will be set aside for
affordable hOllSing, of which prooerty could only be leased/sold to people in the medium income
level (maximum $56,000 - $iu,OOO) ana me maxilllum building height could be no illore then 65
feet. The residential property will. be both rental and ownership properties.
I,
I'
I
I
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
I
Tbe meeting ended at apPl'Oximately 6:20 p,m.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Altomey Office has reviewed dle staff report for PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 revised on
April I J, 2009.
RECOMlliENDATION:
Staff recolllmends dlat tI,e Collier County Plamllng COlllmission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-
2004-AR-6829 and its companion AHDBA to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a
recommendation of approval subject to the stipulatiolllhat eidler of two thiugs must occw':
I) The AHDBA and.PUD document shall be revised to expressly limit residential developmellt to
234 units, resulting in a density of 10.25 units per acre, based upon a consistent application of the
density bonuses al1owance$ of the GMP to with 187 of the 234 dwellings comprising the resluential
component, while no less than 47 affordable and workforce residenlialunits would be located above
ground floor commercial establishments in mixed-use buildings; .Q.B,
I;
I!
2) The BCC makes a policy decisioll regarding whether:
A. The overall density is limited because additional density calUlot be derived from locating
affordable-workforce housillg in the commercial pali of dle PUD, where additional density is
already awarded; and
B. Density bonuses can be derived from offordable-worldbrce housing units that are not
geographicolly located in the residentialp!lli ofthe PUD; and
C. Density blending, as residential density generated fi'om calculations including the
connnercial tract cau be transfened to the residential pali oflhe PUD.
An affirmative determination for ALL three issues wonld therefore deem this petition. as proposed,
consistent with the FLUE/FLUId.
Separate motions are required to oddress the rezone request and the AHDBA request.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7. 2009 cepe
Rev: 4/28/09
Page 23 or 24
Exhibit "c"
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14,2010
Agenda Ilen~gEt)iil72 of 407
January 12. .\110
Pl:lgB 1 ::)14
Office of the County Manager
Leo E Ochs, Jr.
3301 East TamiamlTraU' Naples Flonda 34112. (239) 252-8383' FM: (239) 252-4010
December 7, 2009
Robert D, Pritt
Roetzel & Andress
850 Park Shore Drive - 3'" Floor
Naples, FL 34103
Re: Public Petition Request to Discuss Amending GMP, Urban Mixed-Use District,
Davis Boulevard-County Bam Road Mixed Use Subdistrict
Dear Mr. Pritt:
Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of
Commissioners at the meetin9 of January 12. 2010. regarding the above referenced
subject.
Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes,
Please be advised that the Board will take no action on your petition at this meeting.
However, your petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the
Board's discretion. If the subject matter is currently under litigation or is an on-gOing
Code Enforcement case, the Board will hear the Item but will not discuss the Item after it
has been presented. Therefore, your petition to the Board should be to advise them of
your concern and the need for action by the Board at a future meeting.
The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W.
Harmon Turner Building (Building 'F") of the government complex, Please arrange to be
present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members.
If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this
office.
Sincerely,
~~rY~~
County Manager " -..' "--
,
,,-
~
LEO/jb
cc: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CD&ES Administrator
Exhibit "n"
_v.~..v"".~__,._
2A
Collier Citizen FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8. 2010
Agenda Item No..8A
nj::l.,;'t=>h1hAr 1L1, ',?n1n
Page373.o{46~ .
'"
','!
Too much of a good tiling';
.=V~T~=~e cr~~~
ed an agen-
cy around
a worthy cause it is re-
ally hard to modify your
purpose when things go
in reverse. Back in what
some have referred to
as .the."gilded age: the
time when homes were
going for whatever un.
reasonable amount a
seller wanted to post,
the idea of finiling a By Mark Strain
home that was aiford-
able was unthinkable.
In spite of the constant reminder from
the industrv that the market would take
care of itself, government always knowing
better, began imposing severe restrictions
on how housing was to develop regardless
of market conditions.
Under the constant whine for "aiford-
able housing," Collier County concocted a
myriad ('If names and vahle l€'vels to signify
what local government felt was missing
in the real estate market. Demands were
placed on new developments to force (i
greater amount of less expensive housing
to be provided. At the same time that 10C21
government .lIvas imposing these ne'",. stalj-
d3.!"os, the federal g'::J\'ernment ',~,-3S Gp,~jJ.:~~g
the flood gates \\-.jth less resn-ictive IEort-
gages.
"'V\llen the dust settled, we Tound we had
!orc'2c a oledge fer a huge nurrber cf aI-
Icrdable hCiJsing onto the backs of the d<.:'-
velopment industry and doled OUI 'bilJions
On the
Mark
.". _._---.~=.'-~
We certainlydid demand and the
industry certainly did Pledge to
build a vast amount of affor(iable
housing - 4,214 units to be
exact. Out of all those, only 728
were ever built with the rest
sitting on the books waiting for
an affordable need.
in mortgages to folks who previously would
not have been able to qualify. Funny thing
happened. The folks who got the mortgag-
es they.previously could not have obtained
went out and bought homes they previ-
ously could not have afforded. They did
not buy the low priced affordable houses,
but with their new found mortgage money
encouraged by U nele Sam, they managed
te ~!:!ter Jnto ~omes wen abovf::' '1t'"h.8.t th,:~-
wages would accommodate.
It was during this impres,sionable period
d time that Collier County mandated LfJe
quantity of afforda~le housing that had to
be built every year and enacted ordinances
and incentives to make sure it happened.
.',il..:Jtjc.i" bureaucracy was_ born.
F 2St Iorwa,c u~r'Jugh the past :~I yea:"s
and we have an opportunity to retlect on
our mistakes. w~e certainly did demand and
the h'ld1.1stry cer'tainly did pledge to build a
"as:: amount of affordable housing - 4.214
units to be exact. Out of all those, only 723
"'=~="=-===~:?:'""'""-"c:."-c;;;;,.--'C:'.C~-P-.~ ~~~.~_,.""'~"__ _::-:~......
Exhibit "E"
were ever built with the. rest sittfug.on .the
books waiting for an 'iliord~ble- need. .'
Wishful thinking in today's market The
housing market crashed Diore' severely
than ever before and now we have tens-'of .
thousands oiaffordable homes; morethan.
our mandated rule;' every required. They
will take years to disburse, even af1;er the
economy' turns arou~d. In the m~antime
, we still have the requirement to produce
more of what is not needed. We must feed
that bureaucracy. - .
A developer required to build new ree
stricted aifordable housing to meet a rule.
that is absoiutely faile.d is facing a losing
proposition. Required iliordable Units..,
regulated by the local governmenfare sale
restricted for 15 years. Go anywhere in this
county and you will most likely'lindahome' .
at equal or less than thereguiated"afford-
able" cost and those are not..sa1e,res1ri~ed.
So why would anyone buy a goverDJlleIlt
regulated affordable home now or anytin,e
in the near future when the opeo'rnaIket "
prOvides much better oppottunities?.; -:"'.0 .'
That question -will ~e 2 deterrent to'some
developments -required to produce' a per.
centage of regulated "affordable" housing
LIl order to sell maket rate housirig..-L'l.,this
market we should be incentiviiing the abil-
ity of approved projects to moVe. forward,
not strangle them before they even open
their doors. L~neQPloYI:i1em is high, so if
we (0 not set the stage: to dig OUf way out
we may be in for a long hauL
~o doubt there will be a need for more
aifordable housing in the future and that
is the time to mandate restrictions, when
they are needed.
'-' - ~ "':...., .~~_3'':':;;';;!:._..:!. '~'..'i~~-E..~~'::::: ~i
":"
l?
i
I
J!@
I
r
t , ,
~
~, I
~ ~ ~
~ ~il
~~ ~
"
'i
..
~
i3
j', ,
"Il]i "
:, ~
_.._......'---------'~.__.._--_......"'--.;;,..
J Ii 1.11 I~
~. Blf "
il ~J
. ~.
h ill
Ii ~I
~ ~i
i,"
a <I
II; IlIi. ~1.t.l.fl...J>>.i ##J ijl.uil,lll ~n
In (ill dlf! i Il,'lldI,t ,n n
ul I.'l! rl.J'I".'li.' !h' 1.'.f..~'I.I...r rl.l Jl.
<iI Ifij'I'fJ.11i PI! t)t,lj hi JIi
III d. dIP111 ift ',' IfI}fl' ul d
· [II! f'(f"1 i. f }'I'I'.I 111 It
'J iJlhlhl fIll nlff 'Jli'
'II
h,
'II
I
I
I
I
II
II
1-
_.1 """''It_
I 'I
I 1.-
II
ll>> 0
",II I>> ~U
~'I il
'.~ f;>l?
""" ,f;>
III 'NIl
"-; ~I\~
I
I
......."'....... I
\7
Ii
Ii
~l
I
~~l~ U~i.l ~ .~
~h~ ~~~~~ ~ '<
I'l~~~ ~~~~~ ~
-~Ill c~!1~='
~irI& $ "119
~ )0 0 ~.t?
~ m ~~
~ i ~~
- Q
i ~'X~~:"~~''''''''' ~
, 'I.s~,,*~~f'~' I
j I'S,~~~ '$':. <' . .
'l""JS:i",~., 'I
8"",~~,t\:,:-,I.
i j'.j].:.:,:.:::-..~ S':~~':.'l
, '
J'II! II \: 1m
L_._ _J I
i(r.~
n' ..Emib.i1.::E"
Page 1 of 10
II II 1111' .,11 .11
~ ~ ~i~'~!fi
~~ U~~1l1 t
n n~n ~
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
. Page 374 of 407
101
~'I Ii
I! Ii
~
~
f
I
illl
f ,I
I
I
i
,
Agenda Item No. SA
December 14, 2010
Page 375 of 407
---- ---- r ~r' .~---"- - ----.-----------
;! TiI\11 J
: ' 1111 at
, -::!; \ ill II
~- J ":"! \... ~Jf -,- --. --- '---\ ~ _ . _ ____ -r---"
\I!I \) \ 1-1--'-:":.:::'/~--h,:.,...::,,+::'_...:..:/..--nT'---- ~-l""-h"
jt '.,,"""~ . 1 . '.,. .'.-...".... "--1, ,.,..-
.;-" ",~_._ ."u::~ ~.. ",t - Y , '.___.i~~:~~~ _.~ ~'~']~~: '~~~__u~~l~-:'_~_~_~ /1.~~.~_' I ..' .- - o.
J \, 1 I'"' "n"_.".._ ..r.'ii'f.f",---.. .......1.:::1:._...- __n..._.
,!,. ,; : 1 ;!: i ~1~IU ;!:~'I !, ~d{ -
Ui I' .>.~; 1( p.~' ,IS .;.}:i
H~; Ai' J 1- " . "'-~" ~.l.
!.f : ~ :.)' L'
~~.I ' !
; ,
, ,
N~~;I ~~. ; I'
_:_,.1) ,
21:\'1 I, I
\.., \. j
!:
,
i
I'
I..,., ,. .
11:~iU!1~
~..= <':' "..: ,"
! 1;t~~~ . ~~
I'; ,;,:;'.{.~~. :~
"'.J ..
, ,'..; ':'-C ~,
I ~_:::':'. "'.',.
'::;;!'.j';;;; ~
. .'1"
,~~:~ ~l f
., ","
+h~
';,.. .;',
- .(~ :'~-:~:.
.-.
': ,'i i: ':,~
- ~ . ': <1
,j,~ ~.~: ~
~
\::)
\.
~
m.L: :,
~ ?:'.' ;
..... Ii"
~ .~ ':~
,
<
> ~
, <
" .
" .,
.
,
.1"; .
L-
X
" Z
::
~:;~ V
": :;::~
~; ?:
,:'e
:~
~;~
.,,',
,.'"
',~
'...... \l
~!.\
!~.,\ II jj
'Ii tl
, tIel
n! ",."~
,', !l~!.
"
;; J~
. 'I'~
. "
, ,"
, .,
. ,~
: ).":,
(.,
~
. ~'I
" 0
. "
'., ~~
,.>:
': '~~
".,.; :
I (;\\: t
I I..
, 'J'!
: :\:.
, ill
" <
), ~
/,1\ \\I{
ll:..\H
'I
l:~;!r:
::jt~: I~
"'I!
I "'. ~<
'\ ",
~. ::; ,
!!ll' I, '.;;/
I l "'1
. ,~ 1 r I ~ ~
II' J~~' I'll
Ii 1~:'1
11...[,1 :
)J' '-...11
P: ;
'I::: -
.:~ ~:\ '-I' -~ --... --- -
I'" ','
'1 \ : ~ nl~
"'11,-"
.~. .:!'
"
h.~",__, h "~'-""-1'" ,C"_.,., '__
~., "';:; .,~" l.l~~~ -= '!O'r-'~
-".~
i~ 't
d~
,.
:iil
,
If
-.
~
n
~~
>e
C/:Jl'
-31'
tIi
,~~
~.......
~~
8
."I'Ul>.\:/..Utltll/JI.rl.\l
,\k,HULLL::'I "'PL'D
EXHIBIT r
R~X~A:'"
1\_'o;l.
. . \.i....oIu.M-e.
: N$ ':If. OmI-.f11p_in,
.i: .... ~l.f:~ .\'-~~f....:A.M,,~nJ
~.!~'':::\'~:-1.''='!:::~'"'' ...~~~.~~~_
4.16,2010
Page 7 of 13
...__.-'---_.~_._--_._--._----~--_._-_.,-~_.,._._-----_...--".__..~-~_._-_._------_.....
,
...
] ('
.;-
"I
.....
.~ .~...
.."
~ ~
1.:;
'. ~
, I"
'I,
I"
"
!
'.:[
I
I
I:::'
.....
....
:1/_.___
I :'
, ,
J :
j,J
--
.-
"
lj
"
, !I
\.,:. .!
, .
.--..---'..'
.
'ffi~. i
,~~ ~
'i
.
'!' ;',-,
'.'."",'
I'
, .
; ;
, .
,j
"
.1
:(, 11
.,'
'I;
r....
",
;,i --\\.
',\
I
,
,
;:~t~
t,\~
~:" ~ ~
lId
"I
"
1::1
J!
y
II
/
".'
SL",\IUU:/lI'A,\fILr
f'.-\/ITNf:nSIUJJ. /.1 u
,*....
Exhibit ifF"
Page 2 of 10
EXHIBIT C:
MASTER PLAN
tl
1!I'}!.l
r:7i' ,t;" :;;
'I" I ~ I h rr----n
'I :~. U iii 1~IH:~!~lti
if IIi'! I 'lg'!'lh <<I
~~ I ;~l"lll !' IIi '."!~?i
~! lillil ilhlllll' ~:',. ~l' ~
fj~lllflll JHjl~fi
III ( II -=a-=
, I 11"- ..1-">--------' 1./
: ! / B 1,,,,.,,mowr\~"IA EI
If " '-"_.'~.'" .. (' -r" ,'. "::Jl
-( __- . -_'-__,' J r-- ,,-- -';,
. .'... ,', , '~') rr:.
Ill- . .r, ,,~ n-----~/ltl,r- II[ ili!
l~;i: I'~ / ill \!, I liij
, " ill, u. ~ ! Ii,
I '1 ",: , IT ~ 0 ~ il~l
;1 /' 1 j)r: ~ <( ~ ~, "1i, r- ~
i~ f! IIi '" 2 ~ I H Ji I
ilfl ~, ~J llg ) 0 j,1 ib ~
///1 i &: lilf '1 l'j ~!i f
R1 ! ,M fill! 8, /' d n .
GL r.' , / ~._,~;C,. 1,: 23 ~
I, t '/ r:~~;.E:-:~, '" ii!
/II if ~b! I . ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ <tliei
II/ lit ~ll ~ ~, . '" ! III
! IIII,~-i-rr--'--=:,::,:ON , j
, /, I, "",~':::,~',~~~~ .
~ I m"1 II.~ i~~1
~ li~,,, i J,II,Ii, I Ill',',', fl"II,I' Ii.
~,. 1'!l!11 I jllIllI')l'
'~ :;, ~ h.l,' ~!i 'flli'l ~ ".11I <il
~ Wll" . f HU!i II! II!;II, ~lllIlI lid
North Napl!J5 UniV;tlMethndi$l Church MPUD
Hevi.l;ed: 'une 17, 20 to
Exhibit "F"
Page 3 of 10
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 376 of 407
~' j-'-
, .
~!l~
Uitl
, Ii
. ,
, .'
~~',l
!I't~l
il"
r'J :,,1
.'e .~
til",;,
! l'
u
~. ~
-~ "
1'1 ~
ilw
l:Ili~
ffii!
z,ll
~JI~
~Ili
W~i
A~f
lIaIo~-
~1: ~
I
PageSnfl!
, --------~~.~._--------_.- ~-.~_.
J N_ ~!~
~ Uk
.
!
f
rt; r; i
~IJ~ Jr "
-hf fh
~~t~ ft8
gH~ 3b
[~f !H
!'f. ~il
....,'@ 8'1.
~H fa
IH Ii
fIr it
~Ii I ~
f ~ i ~~
! J ~i
i'.
~ ~,~
;aJ
, I ~
, ~
I t HI
t A,.....
! Fl~
! ~o
: ..rP~
~. !;:~;1:>.
, 'i I:'
! , .-<
. F.
i' .a
, I ~o
: 1 ~i~ ~
i i ni~
i' .~ f:'5
~ i Hi~
C\ I l!~~
~ I 5-
M.' -...
'-'VI h.
,
.
o
~
eN
!\l~
"
p.
-~
~
~
;i ~
-u=l ~
!;o lb.
z ~
~ ~
~ s
15~il'
;! II ~
>>
"t
""
go
~
~
-;
~
o
18 ~
-;
~
o
-l
o
I
,
I
I
I
J
.
I
~----
r
Exhibit "F"
Page 4 of 10
N "is
.
lli
~~ .~
~! h,
~ ~-
ill ~..
~~ g~
"Urn m-h\
~i ~~
",;u (;'l~
Sll ~..
~~ ~~
2~ ,~
~o :;j~
~ zo,
~ ii
Bfa
, '
~ . I
~ 0
~ "
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 20'10
f' a;}c 3l9cJf-41}7
~ ~~g I' 0" ~ U~ ~
~ ~F.~ n Iii ~ Q P">' .
z e~~ ~ '~~ ~ l' ·
~ ~ ~,~ E "Gl' ~
~ ~~ ~ ~.~~ ~
~ 2i" ~m~ ~
~ ~~ ...j!Jl>:~ W
~ ~~f-,~. ~..-
III .. p it ~ ~n
, o.x ~1lI n>S~
m~ i"ii! i :::
~ ~9~
'l'l~
~ ~ JJJ
i
eN
Kl~
~
il,"
0"
Jl..
n
i
~
!>
-l
~
0
-l
-l OJ ' ~~
~ !
j ~
0
-l oj .~
g
Ol l ~
j I
~
i
- --- -
eN
"0
fl.l~
z
P.
~W~
o~~
~mO
~i
'<
1
~
B
'>\
~
~!(f)
t,
I
I B9
r
III.~
~ I !i~
"'I,II,!il
In'
, .i~,
Inl~
I 1:.,
~ ~
~ ~
~i ~
.oj ;0;
l;'" )0.
mn ~
.. :::
~ :;
I hI
;! '
- "".......
, . I
'I I' F ",11
!i! ,lf~
1111 I I"
.,. lie
~ Ii iI
II It III
I, Ii If
,I .
'I
n
II
I'
J~~
r~..-
L_. _.,..J
- .......~
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
. -. PO;)'" :'inof-ztOT.-
II
II
'II . 'l'i
.' 'Il, 'I
~i"'~"I"'r]1 n ~
Is ~ \"---------,i!l II I,. II
Jm (ro~~~ L;~'~7;~-;-;I...;.;, - I'
::11 \I .c.'
t~L~";="===L!~ I~
q II i
I' ii f
I r
,ll~
. iiI
. III
I
f
J mrr==B
H:;B
fW:c~cH
. Exhibit "F" _'. _ ,__ ,. ,
Page 5 of 10
IJ
II
Ii
II
.1..,
" ,
; """h, .
~~Y._------~- .;'
, ,I. ~l
ii i, a~:~~~,-J~
! ~'i I' I -, ,
~! I . iJ. '"
. 0' . I. ~@(Id"
. . $".. ;.0.:.'
I' 1 ;~I'! 'di.-- r
-. ~ I : I: e
_:II- ~ I ~I
" ~
)>.....r ~ 1 I'i
l= '" i 'r--:.
m)> II
0(,-
(')C
,C;)
,,)>
~d I~~~~~
, " it I ii' H
!lD . i,. 1
i ~ !i,i~!i.'1'
I' 'i - .
I i @
II A It"I'_
1).1,) ~ i !i>,,~
'~ il ill ! ---,
, i '-rT;J~
Iii ~!i
~
~
'oJ
1111! Q52 CZ~~~~'III
ff~~i m g~~H;!'~
j,Hl ~~~ ' ~' N
n ~,;~' i
i ~~~ ~
~~:
o .~~....
0_ ~.l 'z~?>2
f"F ""He ~........ea
io ~ ~ ....
m;, .:s
ii; ~
~~ B
...
~~ ij i~ ~;iHUli
I zlll~! fa. !It:WI~
: I' iil P ei ~,"~ ! I m
I :': Bioi ~ ~
,a .0 I:
~,~:aIA~ I:
~lh qa e ef~~t
-, '$~.Utt-<
; ! it J ;b} I 1 I'
, ' ~ f A
, .
~ ;:'
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 379 of 407
u~~),
"~'l
.~f\r4
'1111
Il!'l'
. I'
IU;'
1;:11
11~;,f
"",'
l;f! ,'-
II"
1 ...........
l.
;:.
:i!
;!'j
J.
,
;';"\.~.. "~'~" .~~..~.._,~=:::. -..~._-.
"'~t':':.,~, "'~, .f ' ~-~
l..."~."'~ '. Ic"J! _....
'. ..... . '.. I~"-,~
'" II
.a,""'-,, i~ll{
.'q~",lt, "" !!i.1
,. .lit, "',1.,1 Iii!"'!'!"
~'" ''! (;iJl~.. ~tIH"111
. ~:" \r """~", ~..a-J"."'l
".,. \l,..../ "''..'''0.". le~'Jltd,.
, : " '..~, ..,...,; 1,1 {..,.,t 11
''''-", '..<,- ,..~ n::;:flzi 'I
"'. '~. ~"'" :ciJ 'Jh~ Ii!
, '.....,.. ''', H.' ~lf I. II
'r~~~'" ""'; 11U U !~ ;:
I ~">" '"",t~:-~ t.:
IIL~. "'A, ...
.<~<':""'" jj
') "'~::~>,.;:---
X..':~ "",
iiCI't........
".'1111'
"!.;H""
'.t.iii:II.J
1'.I!I'i'
J~li:!
., *,
fj,t;
J Jq
-'--., -----'-:;~;~-:::::-.-.._---.-
.. "~""_ Iltllrt )sr.,c" -...._.... "'.
....-.. ....... "'~O' % '''"
............ ..........-.,....J) ....
..-.._-....~..:~::~-....
-~'- ............-..
............
.........
/'
11111
Id;.
.J!l
i!ll
."1
r:;","
.J,i ~~_
'I'.. ;.
I' I;
t"-,
~Et
'r*
i~@
S~~
S~~
.
ii'll!
: ,",I
i II .1
.j-
I ~ t
""
l
~ 11" t,
''', I
'( "!
,
!
1
I
.
,
Exhibit "F"
-Page 6 of 10- - -
~' '/
L /
~., /
',/
I
~. "4'_iY_~"""ICI."litI\'-.;Q
r.\ ,...'........'1IM.JIII'''~_,A,_,~
~lI:!!:.:..', .'tllL;I(M.......WXlIJIIJiII'!.!1'II4llM'.M..
,--' tat.. rc,..,..II'''"!.~' .'IlCW&l,.,..=
=-='f.v~'nlfar-=;n~.J"~1CWtI',...; ,
(~
L~
"",'l'" "~',
~=-I.."
1~'KlICIfJ
-,-......-
oR"'~,'i"'"J~' i "7...~(ID:~~
w;;t~_ , ,... ClIWlL
-" -':..<, 1 "1~
f~~ ---I--.L~ =-
I .... a'
11-71 ~1IA1
':l:SCo- au. r~
............;... t'"... ............... -.';'.. .... ,... ....... .......... ....4lPTlbH2
........ ... .','"................ "0" .......... ............
..... .....'........ ....................................... ",,'"
.. <I.,........'.. .."...... "........ .'. '. ...........0....
.. . ...... ~ .0 .. .. ... 0" .. . '. .. ,_. '. ." "." .. .. "," .' '. 'fe_ ;. .. ,,_',.
-..............................' eo. '...;,........... .,_""
.. . .. ,," .." .. ._... ... .....,.. .. .. .:.' ... .. .... ......,;; ~.. .. .,. .:. .; .. .. .... t:. .. .." . .. .. "'" ".. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .'.. . ... .. .. ~ . .. .. .. .
.............O'.... e'" ._. ......
.........,.-W':.........~,~..... .4 ".'4;';'4
4 4 ~ _. .. . .. *' .. .. ..
......"... cO
....... ..
\':., :.:-:.:,."
~:->:..
~:::
EXHIBIT C
MASTER PLAN
i
,
i
.llfrIo1ali. ."
~"J'~;ll!,,~~
~.rq:~n~;f~
......,~.;,
f.!),-,~, ':11,"" .1II1\,UI,H"1l ~"..AJ?U"
E~,fi. ;'. '__'~~1I'
artll,,~1riif'1 " ,',~....
..,~ ~,'....:r .
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:
{
I
I
11l,lCl'-" ___~
---;;:::;;:S;?::::;--;1--
/;:::;------ ~.-
/,(" '~rI--------~1 :
,r, \ I' I
\\0. \ : ill
\~\ \\- \ :I:~
\\\ ~ \ ,II
\,\" \ I :,:
~~\ \ -:=.:rPe ! ,.~},.,"
\ \ \ \ I-II
.\~ \ --to? I :\:
.' \ "., I-II
", \" ot(
\, \ ,/I I I I
\ \ ~ ~ " , i I II
~ \\\ ~t~111
~~I ~ll~.
~..
nft .v....""
st(EXHISIT . r OF
R;PUD QRDlJil.NCE
0-
~1"tMI~
'''-
.i:"'''~,
-"
t~\
~~
\\(
-
fWrI'""..
1....:r.PIit;
fMoCl',.",
=.
l-..'_.......~
U/'IllIM ~"'"'
1lOCOr1H. 11' ".NI 1M
IlCQtWlOlfMrA I.U "I.-No .
- . 'LSl-.'J--.ItJ'
tl.I'...I_1O 1M 11l""o(
""'"KIVrIU,
_._~
\."""",-"",
AtlIUI'ItO,MW.C NUlM
~"'~~~~
~
I'''+I-'-~
U'.J_~
_..~.....-
t. fI:II'AcMQ~- ......~."'O"lllIfIf:l.I'WIM:IlPl, ,I'v<<_l
K_~1I"l\Mil. .''''OIC. .
to I'Hl"tnu' . '"~llf'IlOII;~~
~"#IJrlQ""~OlI~fWri-~ A.i';G~/CUtTURB"
i.,~~~.~~dtI--.~",-.. .. FDOT,POND
. --, EXHIBIT "e"
-,
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
STANDING OAKSL.L.C
,-
. -..
-
,....
~
"'Me.
-
srANDlNG OAKS
-
I'rPlID MAmIIJ'/.MI
ExhibitDete 6103108 If
;200 fl'
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 380 of 407
OJ!.
1
Iii
\.1
,-I
~~!
~
-~__J ![
, r
II,'"
'I I,
II il-
Ijl/,
II I
,I ~
S~ EXHIBIT "F"'Of
RPtlD' ORa.INANer
II!
ill
, I
1111
SEE EKf'fISrr "E" or
~ RP~O ORDl~CE
P'OICrOI.MJ.2
...,
S,E$T.iTU.
SINOLlFllUlLr ilONa
1IIlI~"""'11uttO
J:=n:nr~
EWOIIr4t"WN'llO~L
'IW~--
~ II SEE -EXHIBIT "ror
4 Sl RPUD ORDINANcE
I~:
'I
~ 1
I
I
~I
IRW\~
c-!
Exhibit "F"
Page 7 of 10
"@, "@ m,,~n
='(b~
!l9~!
UUU = I
;;lQJ ~ ~ ii
~ '~9 liW
~~~)
ffi m ./
~d,QJ
~'ig]
ffi~
g~
~~
@'iJ
ffi
"@
~
(Q)
~
~
~
IUr ~
ft~i! ~
nI'
Jill
1'1
a
"0 !Il ~
!!I il M "
"~ ~ "
J,~9.~
l
2
..
t..I U1... ... ...
~ m. P 0
cc ~ !\J
· H : f
~ ~4
I: "
~~
3
PELI~ PlACl! SHOPPING CEIITOR
C-4, COMMIIRCIAL ZONINGDJ8)RJCT
L
Ii ;;,
J Jl
I!!
~
~I
0(
!
J
rmlu~
&
"'
~
"'!"l-~
S"~~
il~~?;
~i!i~
o~jlj
~2o
~..~
~g~
>>
~
. UNOEVELOPEO !i1
COMMERCLIll. ~ '
m II
~J !
~ I
I /.lUL MTORY SElF STORAGEBUIlDING ~ I
, ! -to
I !'1ANNJNGosvELOPMaItWCORPORATfO ""'PIm! .R1D12! lImm n~E PrlD :;;;;~ PZ..IH
~ I ~,""-"'-,,,~_~~ _ DIIIatr~.
- I-CAJTltU,"".-aliuu:ltl.DlltlDl*,l6:t ~...
-'~""-- --- -
Exhibit "F"
Page 8 of 10
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 381 of 407
i
.
U
Ij
h
m
!l1
.~
~~.~
~I~
;1@~
$:i
b
/'.
~
\J
\)
'0
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010-
Page 382 of 407
I ~h "
. I Illll s
! ~
~ II I" I! 'III,
I
I I
J
i I II 1I
J I
! i
I 'I I
I
~'~Mi~
I
1;)
-',,= ~= p
~ I !~i
I ~ - ' ~----- -- ~II
. :'I-"'--~-1' ~
- - - -, '._"-", '1",11'--" --,..,, --- .-.-,' ,-- -,----
- -. " - ,,'-' '" - -- -"15 ---
~~___I~ -:::'-- ~:,~f;fJ~, .~~- ~~
J
!
i
#.31Tl'J'm
>
fi
J
~
.;
.- ~~~_-__. ~'..:"~ ..-_ r'-~l~~~I._" .~_._. ..--'-.~_'-'__
, . ~ fj 11"111'
,r-A I , H~(I /Il1'
'III Ifiil
!il' I I ! 'f
r
1'1 I'~
r
j If "I11H r
. I,l!
.: ~ ' I' ""
Ii! : I ,.1
.il
1/1 Ilht.;.l I,
~
I i lithll'
,EXHIBIT ''A /I
_-;I--
...:.'..
...,....
. -. .
~ :.;: -.. 11'YNN PRQPeRTIES, IlVC.
-
".
-~ -
..;:;.'~ CPUD MASTER PLAN
"
I
~
~
~
~,~
~n
~~
"tl~
I:'< '"
;i.."'Il
~n
""a
~
SungateCenter
CPUD
U'\lTA ~=-
~ ~.~}<\. ~~..,~
==::..~-.:.r-~-- -.:.-....::t:=...
. Exhibit "f"
Pae:e 9 of 10
r
!W'
,
/
(
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 383 of 407
"~I J
~g~ I
.,! i
I
I
I
)
;;
g ~
,~ ji . ~ -I il
R/ ,I if Ii ~: ~J . 11
'"I / ~ 1 lfi rl :; - ~ Ii ,
i~__~__~_____ _____J (~- :L~ ---------l~----~-~~-----~~)
~~.:------ --..--:i~~ 00 '- >'::.-r'- ..,
,
I
,I
..i I
is I
HI
~~ I
iI
)
--
I
I
,
,
,
,
L-'
/----....._-----
" I
"
"
I'
"
"
"
I
,
, /
I II <: I
11~ I
'-,
II'
~U
\j~
~
-":-~,
"
/ I
- ,
~~l
Ii
*
.
o
~
'1 j
I, r.
I) ,-
i " ,
; If /.
!" /I ,
II 'I
II J,
II I
II I'
11"
II II
II "
, "
I I'
, ,
, ,. ~
i~!~ ;i~i i~!i ~
Ill, '"5! ~'~i
l 5s "I,l/!>
"'I E!l~' "Ii
,,'itj.. ~;; ;:: ".$.51\
;~H ~!li ~:H
'I"/::" ",Be ,~..~ I
.. ...~ .::.~.. ;:;it:
,!! iiJ '~j
H I~;\ ~.
~~ >-,!I::: _li
;;:~" ..~
-
_,ll
~,ii~
.,
:a
-i
~i
E,
,,^-..- ~
~l~c.e.! -
,,,aWl
q,tl:~; '"
!i~ I'~'~
.. ....'l. I
~ ~,
. ,
...-" ~
t:t:!:::~ D
mm
,
"I
I,
i;
-i
lH
ijg
I'
d
!1
!i
--~-
ExhibiL'~"
Pa2e 10 of 10
JlUtClJJJ JI'llJ)
_.
~liIAhn"""
....." ....
-- ~
......-
............!
_.::::.--,.,
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 384 of 407
RE: PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE, CCPC STIPULATION RESPONSES tRaM
SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 CCPC HEARING
From Coastal Engineering Consultants (CEC) & Robert D. Pritt (RDP), Legal Counsel
These are responses to the Planning Commission's issues raised on 9-2-10, Petitioner agreed
to overwhelming majority of issues. Here is a more formalized summary.
1. Internal issue [& intent of initial private GMP application]; cross section needed; maybe
deviation; rotate buildings or add extra buffering or setbacks.
CEC Response:
We have reviewed the transcripts from the BCC adoption hearing and have not fonnd a
reference to what was intended as internal parking. We have not revised the Master
Plan as we believe the parking is where it needs to be to keep the Traditional
Neighborhood design concept.
RDP Response: From a lee:al standpoint the Subdistrict reauirement is clear and
ufiilmbie:uous and the submitted MCPsatisfies the GMP reauirement. To do otherwise
would destrov the TND concept and violate the Subdistrict reauirement.
2, Vocation/charter school clarification due to previous CD status; refine language.
CEC Respouse:
We have revised the MPUD document and added Section 1.3 "Uses Permitted by Conditional
Use" to include and clarify these uses.
3. Recreation area not shown. Typically are,
CEC ResDonse:
We have revised the Master Plan to show the proposed location of the
Clubhouse/Recreation Center.
4, Minimum 47 units were discussed in MU tract revising commitment in 7D,
CEC Response:
The commitment to develop a minimum of 47 residential units in the mixed use
component has been added to this section that now appears as 6.D. after the deletion of
the environmental section.
5, Setback 25' minimum or zoned height whichever is greater to ROW Ilot line (p 6).
CEC Response:
We have added footnote #3 to meet this requirement.
6. Increase distance between structures 20+ feet discussed.
CEC Response:
We have revised footnote #2 on both tables to meet this requirement.
7, 3-story max height for buildings in both tables.
CEC Response:
We have added a footnote to both tables to meet this requirement.
8, Fee simple footprint figures (20'w; 1,200 sq.ft are in both tables.
CEC Response:
We have removed the "Townhouse" reference from the MPUD document.
Page 1 of 24
Revised Juno 1 4 October 26, 2010
Exhibit "G"
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 385 of 407
9, Developer or successor, add no sound wall request from PUD property of/to the county.
CEC Response:
We have added item 3.E. to meet this requirement.
10. Tract lines need to be shown.
CEC Response:
We have revised the Master Plan to show the Tract line.
11 ' FAR change minimum to maximum change in commercial table p 8.
CEC Response:
We have revised the table to read maximum.
12, Public ROW internal streets clarification language needed,
CEC Response:
We have revised the language on page 7 and 9 to clarify the intent.
13. MU tract adds townhouse as use.
CEC Response:
We have removed townhouse as use.
14, Remove #6 on page 15 --drop agency references where environmental issues are addressed.
CEC Response:
We have removed #6 from the MPUD document.
15, Show "Other Plan" instead of the current MCP-Other plan shows smaller buildings and break
up of the building footprints shown on the Mep,
CEC Response:
We have revised the MCP to show the break in the buildings.
16, Address conflict wi GMP & F.S, Policy 1.4 of Housing Element and FS 1633177.6.F,l.g
RDP Response:
It is not a conflict. If it were, only BOCC can resolve any internal conflicts. Rules of
statutory construction require that they must be reconciled with the most specific
(Davis-County Barn Subdistrict) controlling.
17. Legal p 14 how A WH agreement is completed-too open ended.
RDP Response: It is up to BOCC as to what al!reement is necessarY at time of
development, but is not appropriate for inclusion in Pun document. Affordable housine:
ae:reements must be flexible to meet potential fundinl! sources.
18, Add footnote #22 from the zoning tables to limit the square footage of certain uses-- p 3,
CEC Response:
We have added a footnote at the bottom of page 3 to meet this requirement.
19, Add recreational standards in the MU table if recreational uses will be located as applicant
stated at hearing,
CEC Response:
We have revised the table to include the recreational uses.
20, Change Roman numerals to Arabic numbers,
Page 2 of 24
Revised Juno 14 October 26. 2010
Exhibit "G"
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 386 of 407
CRC Response:
We have revised the MPUD document and removed the roman nnmerals.
2 L Consider adding a statement that no PUD amendment would be required if FLUE is amended
to remove Housing requirement.
CRC Response:
We have added item 6.E. to the document in case the FLUE is amended.
22, eepe wants to review the SDP to ensure consistency and compliance,
CEC Response:
The Code assigns SDP to the administrative staff. The County has previonsly
vigorously litigated that point and should not now compromise it by assigning it to the
Planning Commission ad hoc.
Page 3 of 24
Revised J'.:no 14 October 26, 2010
Exhibit HGH
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 387 of 407
EXHIBIT A
LIST OF ALLOW ABLE USES
A. RESIDENTIAL TRACT (Desianated uRn on the MPUD Master Plan)
1. 1. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
The maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed within the
Residential Component and Commercial Mixed Use Component of the
Davis Reserve MPUD shall be 234,
1. 2. PERMITTED USES
1'<10 building or structure, or part thereof, sholl be erected, altered or used, or
land used, in whole or in part. for other than the following: .'
A. Principal Uses:
1. Multi-family dwellings,
2, TmvnhO'.;sos,
3, Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the
Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process outlined in the
LDC.
B, Accessory Uses:
1. Gatehouses, guardhouses, and/or access control structures.
2. Recreational uses, including swimming pools, tennis courts,
volleyball courts, bocce ball courts, shuffle board courts, walking
paths and trails, picnic areas, dock, piers, and gazebos.
3. Recreational facilities and buildings including community centers
and club houses for use by residents within the community. These
facilities may include offices, meeting rooms, restrooms, banquet
hall, and kitchens,
4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the
permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited
to garages, both attached and detached, carports. utility
buildings, maintenance shops, and equipment storage.
5, Model units and model sales centers.
Page 4 of 24 Exhibit "G"
Revised Jung 11 October 26. 2010 PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 388 of 407
6. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted accessory uses. as determined by the
"BZA" by the process outlined in the LDC.
B. COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE TRACT (Desianated "MU" on the MPUD Master Plan)
1.1. MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL SQUARE FEET AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
The five-acre Commercial Mixed Use Component, shall not be developed
with more than 35.000 square feet of commercial/office uses. The
maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed within the Residential
Component and Commercial Mixed Use Component of the Davis Reserve
MPUD is 234.
1.2 PERMITTED USES
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. Multi-family dwelling units above commercial units. or in attached
buildings.
2. Allowable commercial uses permitted in the commercial mixed use
component shall be limited to those uses permitted in the C-1. C-2.
and C-3 zoning districts as contained in the Collier County Land
Development Code. Ordinance 04-41. as amended. in effect as of
the date of adoption of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road
Iv\ixed Use Subdistrict (Ordinance No, 2005-25 adopted on June 27.
2005). unless otherwise provided for in this Section. as follows:
L Accounting Services (Group 8721)
2, Apparel & Accessory Stores (Groups 5611-5699)
3. Architectural. Engineering. Surveying Services (Groups 0781.
8711-8713)
4. Assisted Living Facilities
5. Attorney Offices & Legal Services (Group 8111)
~ .^,uto and Homo Suppl',' stora (Group 5531)
L Business Repair Service
8. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313. 7322-7338. 7361-7379.7384.
7389)
L Child Day Care Services (Group 8351)
10. Churches & Places of Worship
lL Eating Establishments and Places (Group 5812)
12. Educational Plants
13. Essential Services
li" Food Stores (Groups 5411-5499)
15. General Merchandise Stores (5311-5399)
Page 5 of 24 Exhibit "G"
Revised June 1 4 October 26.2010 PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 389 of 407
16, Hardware Store (Group 5251)
.lL Health Services (Groups 8011-8049, 8082)
18. Home Furniture, Furnishings, Equipment Store (Groups 5712-5736)
.lL Homo S'.:pply Store (G,oup 5531)
20. Individual & Family Social Services
21, Insurance Agencies, Brokers, Carriers (Groups 6311-6399, 6411 )
22, Largo ,\pplianco Ropai, Sortico (Group 7623)
23. Libraries (Group 8231)
24, Management & Public Relations (Groups 8741-8743, 8748)
25. Membership Organizations (Groups 8611-8699)
26, Miscellaneous Repair Service (Groups 7629-7631)
27, Miscellaneous Retail Services1 (Group 5912-5963, 5992-5999,
except pawnshops, building materials, auction rooms, awning
shops, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools,
tombstones, and whirlpool baths)
28. Museums and Art Galleries (Group 8412)
29, Non-Depository Credit Institutions (Groups 6111-6163)
30. Office Machine Repair Service (Groups 7629-7631)
31, Pain!. Glass, Wallpaper Stores (Group 5231)
32. Personal Services (Groups 721 1, 7212, 7215, 7216, 7221-7251,
7291, (7299, limited to babysitting bureaus, clothing & costume
rental, doting service, depilatory solons, diet workshops, dress suit
rental, electrolysis, hair removal, genealogical investigation
service) )
33. Photographic Studios (Group 7221)
34. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991)
35. Real Estate (Groups 6531-6541)
36, Security Brokers, Dealers, Exchanges, Services (Group 6211-6289)
37, Shoe repair Shops or Shoeshine Parlors (Group 7251)
38, United States Postal Service (Group 4311, excludes major
distribution centers)
39. Veterinarian's Office (Groups 0742, 0752, excludes outdoor
kenneling)
40. Videotape Rental (Group 7841, limited to 1,800 sq. ft. of gross
floor area)
iL Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
list ot permitted principal uses, os determined by the Board of
Zoning Appeal (BZA) through the process outlined in the LDC,
I The retail services buildinl!: must be 5.000 SF or less ofl:!ross floor area. exceot that drug stores are not subiect to this
floor area limitation.
Page 6 of 24 Exhibit "G"
Revised Juno 11 October 26,2010 PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14,2010
Page 390 of 407
1.3 USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE
,A.musomont &. Rocroational ~or'licos (Group 7911) ,
.L Education Services (Groups 8211-8222).
2, Fraternal Lodges, Private Club, or Social Clubs.
3, Schools, Vocational (Groups 8243-8299).
B. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted
principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to:
1. Essential services designed and operated to provide water, sewer,
gas, telephone, electricity, cable television or communications to the
general public including interim and permanent utility and
maintenance facilities.
2. Pump stations, utility services and facilities, emergency generators,
cable and telecommunication facilities.
3. Utility buildings, maintenance shops, and equipment storage.
4. Recreational uses and facilities, including swimming pools, tennis
courts, volleyball courts, bocce ball courts, walking paths and trails,
picnic areas, gazebos, parks, passive recreational areas, pedestrian
rest area, bathrooms, dock, piers, and shuffle board courts recreation
buildings and facilities including community centers and club houses
for use by residents within the community and may include offices,
meeting rooms, restrooms, banquet hall, and kitchens,
5. Manager's residences and offices, temporary sales trailers, and
model units.
6, Gatehouses, guardhouses, and/or access control structures.
7, Water management facilities and related structures.
8. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the
developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants,
including the necessary accessways, parking areas and related uses
to serve such offices subject to the issuance of a temporary use
permit pursuant to the LDC.
9. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the
"BZA" by the process outlined in the LDC.
C. Prohibited Uses:
1. Adult (X-Rated) Video/Movie, Novelty or Book Store.
Page 7 of 24 Exhibit "G"
Revised June 14 October 26. 2010 PUDZ-2004-AR-6S29 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 391 of 407
2, Automotive Services (Group 7549).
3, Gasoline Service Stations (Group 5541),
4. Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens.
C. PRESERVE TRACT (Desicmoted "P" on the MPUD Moster Plan)
1.1. PERMITTED USES
No building or structure or part thereof. shall be erected altered or used, or
land used in whole or in part for other than fhe following, subject to the
issuance of regional, state and federal permits, when required:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Nature preserves.
2. Pervious nature trails and boardwalks, passive recreational areas,
recreational shelters, and other similar uses.
3. Water management structures.
a. A portion of the 5.29 acre preserve area will be used to
temporarily store treated storm water for infrequent events when
run-off exceeds one and one-half inches. The storm water will be
drained back into the storm water management lake as draw
down occurs through the control structure.
4, ,!\ny other conservation use in accordance with the LDC which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the BZA
determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area,
Page 8 of 24
Revised June 14 October 26, 2010
Exhibit "G"
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 392 of 407
EXHIBiT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Table I in Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the
Residential Component. Standards not specifically set forth hefein shall be those
specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the
site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat.
TABLE I
RESIDENTIAL "R" TRACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TOWNHO\JS~ MULTI-FAMILY CLUBHOUSE/RECREATION:
8Ulli:lINGS
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MINIMUM LOT AREA NM N/A N/A
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH NM N/A N/A
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA (Per Unit) 7OO-SI' 700 SF N/A
MINIMUM SETBACK (External)
From Davis Boulevard ROW ~ 25 Frl 25 FTJ
From East, South, & West MPUD Boundaries .J.&..F+ 15 FT 15 FT
MINIMUM SETBACK' (Internal)
MINIMUM FRONT .w.g 10 FT 10 FT
MINIMUM SIDE .w.g 10 FT 10 FT
MINIMUM REAR ~ 5FT 5FT
MiNIMUM PReSERVE ~ 25 FT 00 CT
"'-oJ I I
MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES ~~ 'h B,H' 'I, B.H'
MAXIMUM HEIGHT';
Zoned 4M+ 45 FT 35 FT
Actual ~ 55 FT 45 FT
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
MINIMUM SETBACK (External)
From Davis Boulevard ROW ~ 2G5 Frl 2G5 Frl
From East, South, & West MPUD Boundaries .J.&..F+ 15 FT 15 FT
MINIMUM SETBACK' (Internal)
MINIMUM FRONT .w.g 10FT 10FT
MINiMUM SIDE .w.g 10FT 10FT
MINIMUM REAR ~ 5FT 5FT
MINIMUM PRESERVE .w.g 10FT 10FT
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Zoned JQ.g 30 FT 30FT
Actual ~ 35 FT 35 FT
* Clubhouse/recreation may be located in standalone buildina or within multi-familv buildinq.
Shall be measured from back of curb, If no curb exists, measurement shall be from edge of
pavement.
, y, the buildina heiaht or at least 20 teet. whichever is areater, B,H, = Building Height,
3 25 teet or eauivalent to buildina heiaht, whichever is qreater.
Page 9 of 24
Revised Juno 11 October 26. 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
----.-....,,----
Agenda Itel1] No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 393 of 407
Limited to 3 stories maximum,
Page 10 of 24
Revised Juno 11 October 26, 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 394 of 407
GENERAL:
A. Buildings shall primarily front streets within the Davis Reserve MPUD public
rights of way in order to create a sense of place and relationship to the
street. Facades shall feature design elements that break up monotonous
walls such as changes in wall plane (recesses and protrusions), distinct
building components and varied roof forms. The transition between public
and private space shall be defined with elements such as landscaping, low
decorative walls/fencing, recessed entrances, elevation changes and
similar features,
B. No structures shall be permitted in the required 20-foot lake maintenance
easement.
C. A finished masonry wall or berm, or combination thereof, but not gates or
similar structures shall be allowed but not required between the
Commercial Mixed Use and Residential Components as long as vehicular
and pedestrian traffic remains unobstructed.
D. All building exteriors, lighting, signage, landscaping and visible architectural
infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified. Said unified
architectural theme shall include: a similar architectural design and use of
similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and
fences/walls to be erected on all of the subject parcels. Landscaping and
streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the subject
site,
E. Streets and parking areas shall be designed to promote circulation through
the development. Parking drive lanes shall be interconnected and shall
have no dead-end aisles.
F, No commercial business signs shall be permitted within the Residential
Component.
Page 11 of 24
Revised Juno 14 October 26, 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
_..'....--~._~...."--."".~--_.
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 395 of 407
B, Table II in Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within
the Commercial Mixed Use Component. Standards not specifically set forth
herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as
of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
TABLE II
MIXED-USE "MU"TRACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
BUILDING TYPES
COMMERCIAL" MIXED USE MULTI.FAMIL Y TOWNHOUS& CLU BHOUSE/R ECREA TlON**
PRINCIPAL USES
1v'IiNIMUM LOT AREA N/A N/A N/A AA N A
A VERAGE LOT WIDTH N/A N/A N/A AA N A
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA (Per Unitl N/A 700 SF 700 SF ;zoo.&!' N A
MINIMUM YARDS IExternall
From Davis Boulevard ROW 25 FT. 25 FT-' 25 fT6 ~ 25 FT'
From Countv Barn Road ROW 30 FT 30 FT 30 FT ;J()..g 15 FT
From South MPUD Boundarv 15 FT 15 FT 15 FT ~
MINIMUM SETBACK' [Internal) , I
MINIMUM FRONT 10 FT , 10 FT 10FT -Ul+I 10FT
MINIMUM SIDE 10 FT 10FT 10 FT ! -Ul+I 10FT
MINIMUM REAR 5FT 5FT 5FT M+ 5FT
MINIMUM PRESERVE 25 FT 25 FT 25 FT ~ 25 FT
MIN DISTANCE BETWEEN % B.H2 % B.H2 1/2 B.H2 !,4....g.J:{;! 'h B.H2
STRUCTURES'
MAXIMUM HEIGHT; --------- .
Zoned 45 FT 45 FT I 45 FT 4M+ 35 II
Actual 55 FT 55 FT 55 FT ~ 45 FT
~,~I~J1~A1Ju MAXIMUM FLOOR 0.25 0.25 N/A I AA
AREA RATIO IFAR)3 I ,
,
MAX GROSS LEASABLE AREA 4 35,000 SF 35,000 SF N/A ! AA 20 FT
Sinale Use 15,000 SF 15.000 SF N/A AA 15 FT
Grocery Storel Supermarket4 20,000 SF 20,000 SF N/A AA
ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA N/A N/A N/A AA N/A
A VERAGE LOT WIDTH N/A N/A N/A AA N/A
MiNIMUM SETBACK IExternal1 I
From Davis Boulevard ROW 2G5 FTO 2G5 FTJ 2G5 FTJ I ~ 25 F1'
From County Barn Road ROW 30 FT 30 FT 30 FT i ;J()..g 30 FT
From South MPUD Boundarv 15 FT 15 FT 15 FT i ~ 15 FT
MINIMUM SETBACK' [Internal) I
MINIMUM FRONT 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT -Ul+I 10 FT
MINIMUM SIDE 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT , -Ul+I 10FT
!
MINIMUM REAR 5FT 5FT 5FT I M+ 5FT
MINIMUM PRESERVE 10 FT 10 FT 10FT j -Ul+I 10 FT
MIN DISTANCE BETWEEN 1/2 B.H2 'I, B.H' 'I, B.H2 ! ~~ 1/; B.H2
STRUCTURES
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Zoned 30 FT 30 FT 30 FT ;J()..g 30 FT
Actual 35 FT 35 FT 35 FT ~ 35 FT I
* - If a commercial only building is developed within the "MU" Tract. this applies,
Page 12 of 24
Revised Juno 1 4 October 26, 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 396 of 407
** Clubhouse/recreation mav be located in standalone buildina or within commercial. mixed-
use, or multi-familv buildino,
Shall be meosured from back of curb, If no curb exists, meosurement shall be from edge of
pavement,
2 Y, the buildina heioht or ot leost 20 feet. whichever is areoter. 8,H. = Building Height.
3 In mixed use buildings the FAR only applies to the commercial uses,
, The maximum gross leosable area in the mixed use buildings only applies to commercial
uses. The maximum gross leosable oreo tor commercial uses sholl total no more than 35,000
square feet in the entire MPUD,
5 Limited to 3 stories maximum,
6 25 teet or eauivalent to buildina Ileiaht, whichever is areater.
GENERAL:
A. Buildings shall primarily front streets within the Davis Reserve MPUD public
rights of 'Nay in order to create a sense of place and relationship to the
street. Facades shall feature design elements that break up monotonous
walls such as changes in wall plane (recesses and protrusions), distinct
building components and varied roof forms. The transition between public
and private space shall be defined with elements such as landscaping, low
decorative walls/fencing, recessed entrances, elevation changes and
similar features.
B. No structures shall be permitted in the required 20-foot lake maintenance
easement.
C. A finished masonry wall or berm, or combination thereof, but not gates or
similar structures shall be allowed but not required between the
Commercial Mixed Use and Residential Components as long as vehicular
and pedestrian traffic remains unobstructed.
D. streets and parking areas shall be designed to promote ease of circulation
and alternative routes through the development. Parking drive lanes shall
have no dead-end aisles,
E. All building exteriors, lighting, signage, landscaping and visible architectural
infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified. Said unified
architectural theme shall include: a similar architectural design and use of
similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and
fences/walls to be erected on all of the subject parcels, Landscaping and
streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the subject
site.
Page 13 of 24
Revised June 14 October 26, 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Revised JlCno 14 October 26, 2010
EXHIBIT C
MASTER PLAN
Page 14 of 24
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 397 of 407
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 398 of 407
THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, LESS THE \VEST 50 FEET OF THE EAST il2 OF THE NW 1/4, MiD
LESS THE NORTH 75 FEET, (LESS AND EXCEPT PORTION WAS NOT PROVIDED IN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
AND
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, (LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE
NORTH 75 FEET!tlbREOF - NOT n~CLU1JED m LEGAL DESCRiPTION),
AND
THE W 1/2 OF E 1/2 OF N 1/2 OF S 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
AND
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOVyl~SHIP 50 S01.JTH, RAl~GE 26 EAST, LESS ill'll) EXCEPTING ThnREFROlvI THE
NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF.
THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
ALL THE ABOVE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CONTAINING 22.83 ACRES OF LAND MORE OF LESS.
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
Page 15 of 24
Revised JL'no 11 October 26, 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
EXHIBIT E
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 399 of 407
1. TRANSPORTATION
A. The Developers completion of commitment "B" below shall satisfy
mitigation requirements of Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan, and shall further satisfy proportionate share
requirements of the East Central Transportation Concurrency Management
Area as otherwise required by the Land Development Code.
B. The developer, his successors, or assigns agrees to contribute funding to the
Collier County Transportation Services Division to install and implement an
intelligent traffic management system at two intersections located along
the Davis Boulevard corridor, which is 0 hurricane evacuation route. The
total cost of this contribution sholl be no greater than $110,000.00 for the
signalization improvements to both intersections, Payment shall be required
at time of first Site Development Plan or Plot approval.
C. Payment in lieu for sidewalks and bike lanes for County Barn Rood frontage
sholl be required. The amount shall be determined utilizing FDOT's 2006
Transportation Costs, as amended, Payment sholl be required prior to
r-_,,_'.. -_p__.._1 -f the +:..' rle,,_I_p~_nt Nd~'
,--UUIJIYUf-J IVVUIU I 111.)IU Vc;lV 111'VII VI Cl.
D. The Developer shall contribute his fair share towards the intersection
improvements at Santo Barbaro Boulevard and Davis Boulevard, Fair share
sholl be determined by measuring the project's traffic as a percentage of
the increased intersection capacity. Payment shall be required prior to
County approval of the first development order.
E, A six foot sidewalk along the Davis Boulevard frontage must be provided
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, If the required
sidewalk is constructed by on entity other than the developer, the
developer shall be required to make payment in lieu utilizing FOOT's 2006
Transportation Costs, as amended.
F, No certificates of occupancy shall be issued until one of the following
scenarios occurs:
1, Substantial completion of Santo Barbaro Boulevard extension (from
Davis Blvd. to Rattlesnake Hammock Rood, County project number
60091); and sufficient capacity becomes available on County Barn
Road to accommodate this development, as demonstrated in the
Page 16 of 24
Revised JL.:no 11 October 26, 20 I 0
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
current AUIR or by traffic counts performed by the
approved by the county.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 400 of 407
Developer and
2. Widening of County Barn to four lanes along the entire project frontage
on County Barn Rood, including 011 County Born/Davis Boulevard
intersection improvements (four-lane County Barn Rood; six-lone Davis
Blvd; associated turn lanes included in the County's design plans,
County project number 60101), If the intersection improvements are
completed by Collier County, FOOT, or parties acting on behalf of either
entity, then the developer is required to contribute its' fair share towards
these intersection improvements. Payment shall be required prior to
County approval of the first development order, except os provided in
"GH below.
G. In order to receive Certificates of Occupancy prior to completion of either
the Santa Barbara Extension or County Barn Road widening by Collier
County, FOOT, or parties acting on behalf of either entity, the developer
may elect to provide mitigation by doing the following:
1. Accelerating the planned improvements to County Barn Road outlined
in scenario F. 2 above, AND
2. Completing either of the two following options:
a. Agreeing to accept, attenuate, and treat stormwater runoff for water
quality from all lanes of County Barn Rood for the length of the
project frontage, OR
b. Contributing funding to the Collier County Transportation Services
Division to install and implement on intelligent traffic management
system at two additional intersections along the Davis Boulevard
corridor, which is 0 hurricane evacuation route. The total cost of this
contribution shall be no greater than $110,000.00 for the signalization
improvements to both intersections,
H. Any combination of allowed uses stated in Exhibit A of this PUD shall not be
allowed to exceed the maximum square footage or units listed for each
category of use, The trip generation stated in the Traffic Impact Study [TIS]
used for the approval of this zoning action shall be, construed as 0
maximum trip generation (5,035 total. unadjusted daily tWo-way trips, and
325 adjusted PM Peak hour two-way trips) for any combination of the
allowed uses,
Page 17 of 24
Revised J~ne 14 October 26, 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
2. WATER MANAGEMENT
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 401 of 407
A. Preliminary design indicates the culvert under Davis Boulevard can be
connected to the water management system of the Davis Reserve project
and the flow passed through the Davis Reserve project without adverse
impact to Davis Boulevard, The intent is for the storm water management
lake to be along the northern property line close to the culvert so that the
culvert and lake can be connected. If in final design, it is not possible to
make this connection, a drainage easement shall be provided by owner to
the County at no cost to the County within 30 days of the issuance of the
first development order to allow storm water to bypass the Davis Reserve
site and outfall to the County Barn storm water system. The size of the
easement shall be determined during the SDP phase of the project. This
connection will also be included in fhe Environmental Resource Permit
(ERP).
B. The project site is an exporfer of storm water during a 100-year 3-day event
and compensating storage is not required,
3. PLANNING
A. Sidewalks and access drives within the mixed use component will extend to
the boundaries of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use
Subdistrict to promote interconnection with adjacent properties.
B. Pedestrian and bicycle access shall be provided by owner to both County
Barn Road and Davis Boulevard.
C. All buildings shall be interconnected with ground level pedestrian
walkways,
D. Compliance to applicable zoning and sub-district standards and criteria
shall be verified during the design and Site Development Plan (SDP) phase
of the project.
E. The developer, his successors, or assians shall not reauest a sound wall
barrier in the event Davis Boulevard or Countv Barn Road is widened.
4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
A. A minimum of 10% of the overall residential dwelling unit density shall be
affordable-workforce housing units provided for those earning less than or
equal to 80% of the median household income for Collier County and
another minimum of 10% of the overall density shall be affordable-
workforce housing units provided for those earning greater than 80%, but
no greater than 100% of the median household income for Collier County.
Page 18 of 24
Revised JL:no 11 October 26, 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14, 2010
Page 402 of 407
B. Developer shall enter into an agreement with the Board of County
Commissioners for implementation of the required affordable-workforce
housing units prior to development. Due to the complexity of the various
subsidy programs that are needed to develop the affordable - workforce
housing units, and the availability at the time of development and the
need to reflect the actual conditions relating to the housing and mortgage
market. this agreement sholl be due prior to the issuance of the first building
permit.
5. SUNSETTING PROVISION
A. Pursuant to Exhibit E. 1, F, of this PUD, actions of the County which delay
and/ or cause the failure to complete the roadway capacity
improvements, or to otherwise perform actions which result in providing the
necessary roadway capacity or other requirements (thus allowing CO,
issuance) shall not be deemed to be an action of government pursuant to
10,02.13. D of the LDC as amended, and thus will not cause the suspension
of the duration of the sunsetting timeframes.
(,. I!NVIRONMI!NTAl
A. This projoct shall bo subjoct to E^,C approval prior to approval of tho first
Sito Dovolopmont Plan or final plat/construction plans, ~pocifically, tho
dovolopor shall onsuro tho folio'Ning:
, TI_gi iRe _jJ.__ --1-'F- ee-=l8F-iF-.J.e J.L..._J. il-e l_"g-_le~r' _L J.I..._ ------.8 Ereg
I. III I I ,1'-' IJIU I' II 1'1 UI IIIUI III II)' IUI )' UI IIIU 1J'U;UIY I
shall bo maintainod or onhancod; and
2. Storm\'/Otor shall not bo dischargod bolow tho existing soasonal high
'lea tor lovel,
.Q., General
A. Building permits for commercial development shall not be issued for greater
than 20,000 square feet of floor area prior to issuance of building permits for
a minimum of 91 dwelling units; inclusive of the required proportionate
number of affordable-workforce housing units,
B. Certificates of Occupancy for commercial development shall not be issued
for greater than 20,000 square feet of floor area prior to issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy for a minimum of 91 dwelling units, inclusive of
the required proportionate number of affordable-workforce housing units.
C. For all residential dwelling units exceeding the minimum of 91 units, the
required proportionate number of affordable-workforce housing units shall
be constructed concurrent with market rate dwelling units.
Page 19 of 24
Revised Jl:no 11 October 26, 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, SA
December 14,2010
Page 403 of 407
D. The commercial mixed-use component will shall contain residential units. --6
minimum of 47 residential units shall be developed within the Commercial
Mixed Use Component.
E. In the event the Future Land Use Element, Davis Boulevard/County Barn
Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict is amended to reduce or eliminate the
affordable-workforce housinq requirement. this MPUD document shall not
be required to be amended,
Page 20 of 24
Revised Juno 14 October 26, 2010
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
EXHIBIT F
DAVIS RESERVE CONCEPTUAL COUNTY BARN ACCESS DETAIL
Page 21 of 24
Revised Juno 14 October 26, 2010
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 404 of 407
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DAVIS RESERVE
EXHIBIT F
DAVIS RESERVE CONCEPTUAL COUNTY BARN ACCESS DETAIL
Page 22 of 24
Revised J'~nG 14 October 26, 2010
Agenda Item No SA
December 14, 2010
Page 405 of 407
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 - DA VIS RESERVE
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 14, 2010
Page 406 of 407
EXHIBIT G
CONCEPTUAL STREET SECTIONS
23
"W
I
.
II 1
iii ,g~
fHil 'Q
fm ~;.
iif~ Ii
,. i
<:
[;j
;0
"'
nlll
~~
t';fii
!1J
X<:l'tiR ~
o:t>-c;;& E
aJ'Xm Ii?
rn s: 1;=1 ~
AJ;p.c _ ,..
r-lt,r,106 ~
g~~ =
0"'1<>
o
-"0
q
"'s
I
'"
'"
""
10
.n ~ '1
'.~ . J
N! II
--
't''t
U ill! ;11 iii ~;II! f
~n. ~~. ~~l ~l= 1-
illia ~.i% ~i 'il ~il i~T I
~ 1~lj 'I; I.! .1 I I
~ ii,1 i: lill~1 IIi I
8 ~I,~ i 5 1- i" I
~ "'J~.! ;:r
I'. ~ I'. -0,/
., -. ~. r"
i!lqll Li :
i; i~ I ---' !i
~ . ~J.t:=
Iii: If III
IIi
Ii
"
,
,
I
~
"
, N SA
Agenda Ite~4 ~010
Decembe4r07 ~f 407
Page
..
--
--
--
--
~
1
~ ~
nRl'tB .u.NnoO
$'-l'fltl Z:!JJ~ O'tlll!l ___
---.. ~Jlt.J
---. 1J';".iDuro'~~__====., \ I
----=-""'''''''~ --==----- I " ,
_n_,,;;;:;""=:!___-==___ -- : ': !
-~ , "
-- I "
, 'I
r 11
I I I
, "
I II
I I I
\ I I
I I I
I I I
I I,
~/.lll
nfff~(~\~ i i:
1(\ ( I " f! :,,:
([\ If f H I :~ Ii
'~~ H f, ' 1" I :
~ ~Lt _: :
(\ (I I I
("'Fl"1' (,II I I 1'1
H U Pf t~ '1 I :i
((j 1 ( : 1;'
\ (! , I ~!
I
~,
~:
I~I
j;::J
I~I
I~I
I~I
, ,
I,
, ,
I I
I'
I:
I I
, I
, I
: I
I'
I I
I:
, ,
I'
I:
I I
I;
I'
, ,
I'
, ,
1 '
I I
I I
I I
, ,
, ,
I'
I'
I I
, I
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
~m ~ii
~~~~ ~~,
~ ~ ~.(..~..~........ . '.'
::;:::::::::::)5:: ~~ll.:>:
. ... . I ... j ,
" ',';., .,...., i! .
. ~ ~. ,"0'." t ~ '. ~ ~ ~
(,~<.>...>>{~
. , ." " .....' ~ . -
d :<<:::;1-:':-' ,
" ,. ~,,<
i! ' . '. , .
Ii -: -: - . . . .
-.
02 \ 113916.0001
638084 v_
~z _
EXHIBIT G
24