Agenda 12/01/2009 Item # 8A
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 1 of 119
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, LCS-Westminster Naples LLC, represented by Robert Duane,
AICP of Hole Montes and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich and
Koester, is requesting a Rezone from the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit
Development (PUD), the Oak Grove PUD, and the Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for a 764,478 square-foot continuing care
retirement community (CCRe) to be known as the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD. The
approximately 29.25-acre subject property is located on the north side of Orange Blossom
Drive, approximately 1,000 feet east of Airport Road (CR-31) and west of Livingston Road
(CR-881) in Section I, Township 49 South, Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida
(Companion item to PUDA-2008-AR-14090 and PUDA-2008-AR-14092).
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) render a decision on the above-referenced
CPUD rezone request in view of staffs findings and recommendations and the recommendations
of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC); and to insure that the community's
interests are maintained.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
..".
The proposed facility would allow a maximum of 764,478 square feet of area comprised of
independent living units, assisted living units, a skilled nursing and memory (dementia) care unit
and a minimum of 72,000 square feet of various amenities associated with these uses at a
combined floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60, This item is a companion to PUDA-2008-AR-14090,
the Oak Grove PUD, and to PUDA-2008-AR-14092, the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, which
propose to remove 6.13 and 5.85 acres, respectively, from their boundaries in order to add this
combined acreage to the subject CPUD, If approved, the new project would allow for a CCRC
that, as described in the CPUD documcnt, would provide one or more of the following dwelling
unit types: villas, multifamily apartments, and skilled nursing and memory care units. As a
"continuing care" community, residents would enjoy the ability to "age-in-place" as their health
needs changed over time, since meals, housekeeping services, transportation, social activities,
nursing care, and cducational growth opportunities would be madc available to them on-site,
According to Section 1,08,O? of the Land Development Code (LDC), the proposed CCRC would
be defmed as a group hOl/sing unit, which includes assisted living and continuing care facilities,
The group housing proposed with this application would allow a maximum of 340 independent
living units, 20 assisted living beds, 45 skilled nursing bcds and 15 memory care beds in a
community restricted to persons aged 62 years or older, A variety of associated accessory uscs,
such as dining rooms, a bank, beauty shop, swimming pool, wellness centcr, medical office, et
cetera would also be provided for the exclusive use of residents and their guests.
As depicted on the Master Plan in Exhibit C to the CPUD documents, the CCRC would be
.'"'" comprised of multiple buildings located around a meandering lake system, which would feature
as an integral component of the overall site design, The tall cst buildings on the site, set back
PUDZ-2008,AR-1409/, Siena Lakes CCRC
October 30, 2009
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 2 of 119
between 61 feet and 224 feet from Orange Blossom Drive, would house the independent living
units that, as noted on the site plan contained in the staff report, would form a central axis
extending east to west between the project's two largest lakes, Each of these buildings would be
either four-story, with under-building parking occupying the first floor (for an effective total of
five stories above grade), stepping down to three stories, with under-building parking occupying
the first floor (for an effective total of four stories above grade) at their interface with Orange
Blossom Drive and the multi-family uses of Bridgewater Bay. The maximum zoned height of
these structures would be 53 feet (with an actual height of 60 feet, including appurtenances),
Five other structures, also eomprised of independent living units, would parallel the northern
boundary of the site and would be oriented towards the lakefronts to their south, These structures
would be three-story with a zoned height of 4 1,5 feet and an actual height of 48 feet. They would
provide one garage parking space on the first floor, with their remaining parking needs met by
detached, one-story garages located to the north of each building in order to further separate
these buildings from the adjacent multi-family residences of the Lakeside community, In two-
story structures in the northwestern portion of the site, an auditorium, a "commons" (i.e" dining
hall) and the assisted living and ski lied nursing and memory care units would be accommodated.
These buildings would have a maximum zoned height of 42 feet (and actual height of 45 feet).
The residential portions of these structures would be built around private courtyards, while the
auditorium would overlook a small .37-acre lake with a deck. The commons area would provide
access to both a lakeside swimming pool and a green for badminton or croquet. Each of these
uses would be interconnected by a network of pathways linking a boardwalk, another lakeside
observation deck, two putting greens, a trellised seating area bridging the confluence of two
lakes and, ultimately, the independent living units previously described in the central and eastern
portions of the site (see Exhibit C-5 of the CPUD documents for graphic illustrations depicting
the character and quality of some ofthe site's recreation and open space amenities). Usable open
space on the site, including eight acres of undeveloped land, would comprise 32 percent of the
site's total acreage, However, when combined with the project's proposed 5.18 acres of lakes,
the overall open space increases to approximately 51 percent of the site, which is well over the
30 percent requirement of the LDC.
As noted, the applicant is requesting a maximum FAR of 0,60, which is an increase of 0.15 FAR
from that permitted for group housing by Section 5,05,04,D.1 of the LDC. The applicant has not
formally requested a deviation from this requirement, based on the Collier County Planning
Commission's (CCPC) prior support and the Board of County Commissioners' (BCC) ultimate
granting of 0,60 FARs for group housing facilities in the Napoli Village CPUD and the
Vanderbilt Trust CFPUD, in which the BeC dcte/mined the 0.45 FAR of the LDC to be an
outdated threshold for modem group housing in light of market dcmands for generally larger-
sized units with a greater variety and number of amenities, such as on-site dining, wellness
facilities, and recreational uses,
FISCAL IMPACT:
",-",
The rezoning action, in and of itself, would have no fiscal impact on Collier County, There is no
guarantee that the project, at build out, would maximize its authorized level of development,
however, if the use were approved, a portion of the existing land would be developed and the
new development would result in an impact on Collier County public facilities.
PUDZ-2008-AR-J4091, Siena Lakes CeRe
October 30, 2009
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 3 of 119
The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the
impacts of each new development on public facilities, These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as
needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities, Additionally, in order
to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development
order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation
Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances, Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include
building permit review fees, Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad
valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements, Please
note that impact fees and taxes collected were not includcd in the criteria used by staff and the
Planning Commission to analyze this petition,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
Future Land Use Element: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area
(Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the countywide
Future Land Use Map of the GMP. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of
residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as PUDs, The
purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural
resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated, This
designation also allows community facilities, such as the proposed group housing facilty.
. '.. Because group housing density is determined by FAR, it is not subject to the density rating
system, (Please note that the complete GMP analysis is contained in the staff report,)
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and has detemlined that the adjacent roadway network will have
sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five-year plarming period upon
provision of mitigation, Therefore, the subject application can be deemed consistent with Policy
5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP.
GMP Conclusion: Based upon the abovc analysis, staff concludes the proposed CPUD rezone
may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element However, in accordance with
Policy 7,3, Smart Growth Principles, it is staffs opinion that the provision of an interconnection
from the project to the adjoining properties to the west would be beneficial for the future
residents of the CCRC, the surrounding residential projects and St Katherine's Church,
especially since such an interconnection is easily feasible.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT:
Approval of this CPUD would have no affordable housing impact since no affordable housing
units are proposed. The petitioner has not offered to contribute to the local affordable housing
trust fund in order to mitigate the project's impact on the need to provide affordable housing for
its employees.
,,,-.
PUDZ-2008-AR,14091, Siella Lakes CCRe
October 30. 2009
Page 3 of 3
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 4 of 119
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed this application for consistency with the Land
Development Code and Growth Management Plan, All environmental issues have been
addressed. The applicant was not required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for
this project nor was a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Council required because the
site had been previously cleared and impacted, However, because of the property's history of
agricultural use since the 1960s and aerial photographic evidence of the backfilling of a third
borrow pit, a limited Phase II environmental assessment was required to determine if any of the
backfill contained hazardous material or petroleum products, The results of the soil tests revealed
insignificant contamination associated with buried debris and pesticide levels from the former
agricultural use to be either below the laboratory method detection limits or the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection's soil cleanup target levels.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
Pursuant to LDC Section 8,06,03 0.1 Powers and Duties, the EAC did not review this petition
since the site qualifies for an EIS exemption,
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
,..,....,
This item was heard by the CCPC at their August 6, 2009 public hearing, The CCPC voted 6-2 to
forward it to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval,
subject to minor modifications to the CPUD document and several conditions, which the applicant
has incorporated into the document. The CCPC also recommended that the BCC approve all of the
applicant's requests for the deviations outlined in the staff report, and that the applicant modify the
requested waiver from the requircment to provide a standard five-foot sidewalk on both sides of
the access roadway (Deviation 5), Instead, the CCPC recommended that a combination six-foot
sidewalklbike path be provided on one side of the access roadway, which the applicant has now
incorporated into the revised Master Plan contained in Exhibit C- L With this change, staff also
supports the requested deviation, However, staff still recommends denial of Deviation 4, as noted
on page 18 of the staff report,
Regarding their recommendation of denial, the two dissenting commissioners indicated that the
project was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and did not comply with LDC
Subsection 1O,02,I3,B.5, criteria I, 4 and 8 (described on pages I-II of the attached CCPC Staff
Report) and LDC Subsection 10,03,05,1.2, criteria 1,2, 12 and 14 (described on pages 12-15 of the
attached CCPC Staff Report),
Staff has received 20 letters of objection and one letter of support from the community, all of
which have been attached to this Executive Summary in Appendix I,
It should be noted that after the CCPC hearing, and after the letters of objection were received,
the applicants modified the proposed maximum building heights by reducing them from 60
zoned feet to 53 feet (or 69 actual feet to 60 feet, respectively). Thc buildings' step-downs from
.- five to four effective stories at the interfaces with Orange Blossom Drive and Bridgewater Bay,
as described on page two, were also incorporated, Because these modifications resulted in a
PUDZ-2008-AR-1409/, Siena Lakes CeRe
October 30, 2009
Page 4 of 4
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 5 of 119
reduction of the project's impacts, the petition was not remanded to the CCPC for another
hearing.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is a site specific rezone from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, the Oak Grove PUD, and
the Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)
Zoning District. Site specific rezones are quasi-judicial in nature and require ex parte disclosures,
As such 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 BCC, should it consider denying the
rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable,
This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed
criteria below,
Criteria for CPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions, The answers assist you in making a detelmination for
approval or not,
I, Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development
proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities,
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements,
contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed CPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Growth Management Plan.
4, Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions
may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening requirements,
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development?
6, Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of
assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and
private,
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of sWTounding areas to
accommodate expansion,
-'-.",
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CeRe
October 30, 2009
Page 5 of 5
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 6 of 119
8. Consider: Conformity with CPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of
such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
9, Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed CPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern?
II. Would the requested CPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12, Consider: Whether existing district boundarics are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change,
13, Consider: Whcther changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary,
14, Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15, Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development. or otherwise affect public safety?
16, Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17, Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18, Will the proposed change adversely affect propeliy 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 afspecial privilege to
an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare,
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in
accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question",)
22, Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
.'-"
23,
Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already pennitting such use,
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CeRe
October 30, 2009
Page 6 of 6
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 7 of 119
24, Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site
alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range
of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification,
25, Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed CPUD rezone on
the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of
service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch,106, article II], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the CPUD rezone request that
the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare?
The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the
written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive
Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the
BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria,
This item is legally sufficient for Board action,-HFAC
RECOMMENDA nON:
Staff recommends that the BCC approve PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, subject to the developer
commitments contained in Exhibit F of the attached CPUD ordinance.
PREPARED BY:
John-David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
~,..".-
PUDZ,2008,AR-/4091, Siena Lakes CCRC
October 30, 2009
Page 7 of 7
~-""
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 8 of 119
8A
This item continued from the September 15, 2009 BCC Meeting, This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
PUDZ-2008,AR-14091, LCS-Westminster Naples LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP
of Hole Montes and Richard D. Yavanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, is
requesting a Rezone from the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD),
the Oak Grove PUD, and the Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) for a 764,478 square-foot continuing care retirement community
(CCRC) to be known as the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, The approximately 29.25-acre
subject property is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive, approximately 1,000
feet east of Airport Road (CR-31) and west of Livingston Road (CR-881) in Section 1,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida (Companion item to Item 8B
PUDA-2008,AR,14090 and Item 8C PUDA-2008-AR-14092). CTS
12/1/20099:00:00 AM
Prepared By
John-David Moss
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Planner, Principal
Zoning & Land Development Review
Date
81261200912:44:36 PM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Date
11110120092:27 PM
Approved By
Heidi F. Ashton
County Attorney
Section Chief/Land Use-Transportation
County Attorney
Date
11110120094:38 PM
Approved By
Ray Bellows
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Manager ~ Plannin~
Zoning & Land Development Review
Date
11110120095:25 PM
Approved By
Susan Istenes, AICP
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Director - Zoning & Land Development
Zoning & Land Development Review
Date
11117/20098:57 AM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
".'--
County Attorney
Date
11117120093:04 PM
Approved By
-'--_.'_.~-'--
,...~-~".""'--"'-~~~.._. ..- -
-- -"--'-"--"'-~"'-'"
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 9 of 119
Joseph K. Schmitt
Administrator ~ Community Development
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services
11117120099:22 PM
Approved By
OMS Coordinator
Date
County Attorney
County Attorney
11/18120098:59 AM
Approved By
Mark Isackson
Management/Budget Analyst, Senior
Date
Office of Management &
Budget
Office of Management & Budget
11119120092:21 PM
Approved By
Leo E. Ochs, Jr.
County Manager
Date
County Managers Office
County Managers Office
111201200912:55 PM
',0-',""'"
Agenda Item No, 8A
AGE~-t 2009
Page 10 of 119
-
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 6, 2009
SUBJECT:
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091: SIENA LAKES COMMERCIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
(COMPANION ITEMS: PUDA-2008-AR-14090 OAK GROVE PUD AND
PUDA-2008-AR-14092 ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS PUD)
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
,--'
OWNER:
Old Barn, Inc,
1613 Chinaberry Way
Naples, FL 34105
CONTRACT PURCHASER:
LCS-Westminster, LLC
400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Des Moines, IA 50309
AGENTS:
Robert L. Duane, AICP
Hole Montes, Inc,
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq,
Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich and Koester
4001 Tamiami Trail North
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The applicant requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of
the subject properties from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, Oak Grove PUD and Rural
Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the Commercial Plmmed Unit Development (CPUD) zoning
district for a "continuing care retirement community" (CCRC) to be known as the Siena Lakes
CPUD.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The 29.25-acre subject property is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive,
approximately 1,000 feet east of Airport Road (CR 31) and west of Livingston Road (CR 881), in
Section I, Township 49 South, Range 25 East (see location map on the preceding page),
,-
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD
July 21, 2009
'_'_._'h.___
--_.~ .' _."--".,-
.. ''''''-'~----~''~'
-, -~.-
_.'
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
e 11 of 119
K t= p a
"'- .
Cl ,
~ "
:> Cl " "
~ ~ , ~ ,
Q. :> u
SUNOANCE ~ . . i ~ <(
i I Q. - 11 .
~ . .
"
~ = m X~
"
=
= 1 'y
z
, 0 = L=
w
~ ~ !< , = I=c
-
1 "' 0 - ~
0 =
~ ~
,:,_,'._,",". .,:.. :U<"".: ,TIm = Cl
'\ Jji :umii1iji:~i!i:~jif:;i~!:j UniWi:!i1jii!.' = :> "
~~ Q. .
f- ( .
D\ = I
= -"'(
. " .
. . " = ~
. ~ .
\\ < ~ f=
. I
Cl . u . rl;~,i":,:".,i"""".,,.,' 0 \
:> ~ ~ g ) ~
Q. " 'II
l 0 0
- ~
< ~ l[!;;::;:;:;:;;;:;;::::;:/::::;::,;;:::':;:;::\':;:::; Ott11i'~
w .,.' !ii!.!ii!!!!::i:jU&<W/:!!iHU = '0 ,I
I < "..'
< " .,-,'
" I, "':' ;"O"~~-"";''';'' =
" ~ I,':: .
~ " <: j::;:'.~._~:~il!:i.I!I!iiii!ii!:iii: = ~ ~,~ ~
,
0 ".'. <-
" ,,-,' ",.....,.......'.', "",-",-,.,.,.;.,',
, ): ,,;'j,,".;:::.:'!:,_'."'"!";';"':':"':'" -, 0c )
.,.,.J'....,',.,.,""""-..,...,',.,,..
".,.".,.,~.....~.~ "7
-
Cl . " / '<^'J <(
. 0 " ~
:> < S ~ JI
< 1/1
l i Q. % . ~ '"
/ 1/ u ~
0 Cl .
w ;;
. :> > ~
<( , u U
, ~ .
. " Q. ~
/; u /,
_. '4tI-#:-
I!I i II
"IO!' I ·
"fr p ~
(~i
w~ i
I. I
'. I
:.~,- !
1i
, r
, ~
!
.
,
<
O~VNT1noQ NYOOl
(IljV~3nt>1
~ ! z
l Ww
g ~ Q,...-~
111118il "5
~'III
.
",'
. ".
- ii.
,
<,,"
",'
... ,,~~
p
,"
,
,~,
.. 5~"
g'!
1
,~ .
l
,
!
<
,
""
.
0
"
""
!
-
-
"
I- lK
J
<l~lg VlN\I~ ..l......
~
,
"
"".
,
~~~
I
~
.
5-
o
..
-,"
!'
~
,
"
:;:l'!...
'!
!
~
,
"-
".
.
." .
".
i
I.
eB.,
,"
"
'" !~
,
'"
I~l'
~ti
, II.!
!,!~ '
<:g" ~ ~ :
I ,: II ><
"
b
"
""
,.. '3'Vl~~;lml
~I" 31Vll'lla.0lI
'"'<ll.lil_.~t:..:
-~I ~2
I
~z
00
w
~!<
00
'" 0 .
Q,~
~~
.
111K'
~U
tu
o
<
,!
~I
.
I '
I!, i Ii I
IllI!
!J'i01I "~LC~11In
1'\ ; I!
".""J,.' m
'j
,
- .
""
01 "UYJ.$l:l3!Hl
.= SFi.
:':"'11';1 i~,
i ' 1! .J
!!
!.
.
.
':..
.i
<
'"
t;,e
~ (000)
~fi ........ ,..om.
'-"">IGSlOO!t<W>
! "" "'I
" i ~g ~~
I!
t:... ~ ~ 6!f
ll~ ~ rt11 i I Inl' !~.<
H:..J ,I' ,,,.. I ~!d'
l~ ~I!! i ,,'~, ~,,~~~. ,~: """"
"~I d. 1 !"S' II I, !ll.'"1
.' """"l1Jil, :!:,I'" ,,""' .:! !
'" 1/ I!P ~ / "i iF!l'
':li '!' ,i! " '1 I I ",1
11- !J"",/ i,~ ! ~ "
" rm,e 3' · ~ -~ ::;g; fJ \'~, ~"""'- - ~
"" ! '
,'-II ~~'f-'
I, !.q
.. I
;f-
,;,
~~'tJ
L
iP
.
,1
-"
!
~i
".
t '
I
i ...J
""
.
"
il
~; ,
,Ii
l;il
~".
,I.
.
l~
,l
,
.
I~I
)/
~~ '!.'
~ li~
:::::
"
-
0...
<(
~
(.!)
Z
-
Z
o
N
~
'"
o
""
~
,
0:
<(
,
'"
o
o
N
,
N
a
::>
[L
"
z
o
-
...
-
...
UJ
a.
!l..
<(
~
z
o
-
I-
<(
()
o
~
,-
..- .....-
I
'~
d!lli Id
II !'~ ~~~!<
;i ~~" U H
---
i _ . I. !
~.'~5,' .
1!~!1; "
"U .,
i - !l !
-,
I,
,
,
rl
I !
.
I
Ii
-\
~
,
,
,",-,
.
.
"
;11
:
@~
,
-.'-
.--".-.. .
--,~---_._..-
U'_'~~_._~'
,."
!i~
II:
ll~iI ~ ~
,.
J _ '~
llf
~ ~ -
, .,
..
- :0:
,.
:!=!I!
i~l
"~j
~
000
n
! U Ii
! i!hi !
~ l ;~Ii~ ., I
. f ig!~. ., I
~ ~ !~:~t Ii ~~ ~
= I Ilil"i =. II I
~ " 'il · ~~ ii !
" ! ',. ~ ~! ,. i
~ I ii!~~ il Ii !
~ , ;~im!f .1 II "i
~ < :'. :1 l! II
a ,J .... oj
II
! _h!i
"1Hr' is
I~,,~i I!
.' "1' H'
,~ H 5
-
.
.
l
I
!
.
,.
i;
,I
, ~
.
-
>- ~ ~
r'
.1
n
.
n
l
,
i
,
i
-
.
,
.
l
.
I; ;;
...
;;j<>1il
-
.
,
..
"
..
~ II
~
>
~
"
w
"
,
o
~
i. .... ~ ~..
,,,, -, "
i .,;.. ... i .. ~ .. .,
lil
.,. i
,!I! !
:1i ~ ~ ~ II'
. ;>1, l ,
is'll! ·
a~!d!!
.
i
.
-
!
-
,
!
,
:
.
.
$ ~
h
o
~Ililf.l
".~
o!ti=
w"5
ow,
-."
~<:i
li"u
w3
wio
w"1i
w
""
~
~
,
!
,
. ,"
i ;~~
,i'j'
:''1
-"
!1!1I
gi!1:~~
.
"
~;:
.
,.
~ "":tt
~ J~~
h1it
.. ~r:lil~
r.; ,.;tll::~
i'~;;
I';!
,ml
(e'~o<I
ot!:fi'
...~~.t
~ !U~
. ~,
~i
II
;,
li~
~~
"~
!~
~,
"
.i
!j
\.
"l
11
,-
I'
.'
!l
'.
L
!
.
,
,
z
<
-J
0.
0:'7
w()
>-
<1)>-
<iii
""
,)(
Ow
::;;
0;
()
-- ..........~...... ",-.,-- - ""'.."... "'" - '--..,",'" ,"'.. ""',....,""."""'"'.,,<=\,-~
i~8"llt
.",-
i;i~rg
...oJ
~!iii
0~
!~I
~
Ii,
. . ",
.. -"
- -,
.. .
~ Z i
t~;~loJ
1'1'1'1
C)
~
C)
C)
1lQ
o
.>011
'"
,..:{
'"
c:t
o
.-
aE>
mB
'1
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 13 of 119
PURPOSEffiESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The proposed facility would allow a maximum of 764,524 square feet of area comprised of
independent living units, assisted living units, a skilled nursing and memory (dementia) care unit
and 72,257 square feet of various amenities associated with these uses at a combined floor area
ratio (FAR) of 0,60, This item is a companion to PUDA-2008-AR-14090, the Oak Grove PUD,
and to PUDA-2008-AR-14092, the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, which propose to remove 6.13
and 5.85 acres, respectively, from their PUD boundaries in order to add this combined acreage to
the subject CPUD, If approved, the new project would allow for a 29.25-acre CCRC that, as
described in the CPUD document, would provide one or more of the following dwelling unit types:
villas, multifamily apartments, and skilled nursing and memory care units. As a "continuing care"
community, residents would enjoy the ability to "age-in-place" as their health needs changed over
time, since meals, housekeeping services, transportation, social activities, nursing care, and
educational growth opportunities would be made available to them on-site.
According to Section 1.08,02 of the Land Development Code (LDC), the proposed CCRC would
be defined as a group housing unit, which includes assisted living and continuing care facilities.
The group housing proposed with this application would allow a maximum of 340 independent
living units, 20 assisted living beds, 45 skilled nursing beds and 15 memory care beds in a
community restricted to persons aged 62 years or older, A variety of associated accessory uses,
such as dining rooms, a bank, beauty shop, swimming pool, wellness center, medical office, et
cetera would also be provided for the exclusive use of residents and their guests,
As depicted on the preceding Master Plan, the CCRC would be comprised of multiple buildings
situated around a meandering lake system, which would feature as an integral component of the
site's design, The tallest buildings on the site, housing independent living units, would form a
central axis extending east to west between the project's two largest lakes, Each of these buildings
would be four-story, with under-building parking occupying the first floor, for an effective total of
five stories above grade, (One of these buildings, the most centrally located, would not have
understory parking, but rather five finished floors), The maximum zoned height of these structures
would be 60 feet with an actual height of 69 feet, including appurtenances. Five other structures,
also comprised of independent living units, would parallel the northern boundary of the site and
would be oriented towards the lakefronts to their south, These structures would be three-story with
a zoned height of 41.5 feet and an actual height of 48 feet. They would provide one garage parking
space on the first floor, with their remaining parking needs met by detached, one-story garages
located to the north of each building in order to separate these buildings from the adjacent multi-
family residences of the Lakeside community, In two-story structures in the northeastern portion of
the site, an auditorium, a "commons" (i.e" dining hall) and the assisted living and skilled nursing
and memory care units would be accommodated, These buildings would have a maximum zoned
height of 42 feet and actual height of 45 feeL The residential portions of these structures would be
built around private courtyards, while the auditorium would overlook a small .37-acre lake with a
deck. The commons area would provide access to both a lakeside swimming pool and a green for
badminton or croquet. Each of these uses would be interconnected by a network of pathways
linking a boardwalk, another lakeside observation deck, two putting greens, a trellised seating area
bridging the confluence of two lakes and, ultimately, the independent living units previously
described in the central and western portions of the site (see Exhibit C-5 of the CPUD documents
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
2
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 14 of 119
--
for graphic illustrations depicting the character and quality of some of the site's recreation and
open space amenities). Usable open space on the site, including eight acres of undeveloped land,
would comprise 32 percent of the site's total acreage. However, when combined with the project's
proposed 5 J 8 acres of lakes, the overall open space increases to approximately 51 percent of the
site, which is well over the 30 percent requirement of the LDC.
As noted, the applicant is requesting a maximum FAR of 0,60, which is an increase of 0, 15 FAR
from that permitted for group housing by Section 5,05.04.D.I of the LDC, The applicant has not
formally requested a deviation from this requirement, based on the CCPC's prior support and the
Board of County Commissioners' (BCC) ultimate granting of 0,60 FARs for group housing
facilities in the Napoli Village CPUD and the Vanderbilt Trust CFPUD, in which the BCC
determined the 0.45 FAR of the LDC to be an outdated threshold for modern group housing in
light of market demands for generally larger-sized units with a greater variety and number of
amenities, such as on-site dining, wellness facilities, and recreational uses.
AERIAL VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
-,.""
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North:
East:
Multi-family residences of the Lakeside community, zoned Citrus Gardens PUD,
Multi-family residences of the Bridgewater Bay community and a stormwater
management pond, zoned Oak Grove PUD and First Baptist Church PUD, respectively,
Orange Blossom Drive, then single-family homes and duplexes of the Walden Oaks
community, zoned Lone Oak PUD,
South:
-
PUDZ-2008.AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
3
-,._>",--~
-._--.......,""'~,...
u ..,."'~~.,_~__ _
- ,-~_. .
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1 , 2009
Page 15 of 11 g
West: Vacant land of Orange Blossom Gardens PUD.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban Mixed Use District,
Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the GMP,
This district is intended to accommodate a v31'iety of residential and non-residential land uses,
including mixed-use developments such as PUDs, The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for
higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned
public facilities are concentrated, This designation also allows community facilities, such as the
proposed group housing facilty, Because group housing density is determined by FAR, it is not
subject to the density rating system.
FLUE Policy 5,4 requires new land uses to be compatible with and complementary to the
surrounding land uses as set forth in the LDC, It is the responsibility of the Zoning and Land
Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform this
compatibility analysis,
In reviewing for compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and subsequent policies regarding Smart
Growth principles, staff provides (in bold font) the following analysis:
Policy 7.1.
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their propertie,. to
fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without
violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code,
The project's main entrance and a service entrance access are provided from Orange
Blossom Drive, a minor collector roadway.
Policy 7.2
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals,
The Master Plan, Exhibit C-l to the CPUD document, indicates access to all buildings and
vehicle parking areas via a loop road, which has two access points on Orange Blossom Drive,
as mentioned. Furthermore, this is a residential project with a mix of accessory uses to
support its residents, which would reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial
roads.
Policy 7.3
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their
interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use
type,
The applicant has stated that it is not feasible to have shared access between the subject
prOpei"ty and the Lakeside community to the north or to the Oak Grove PUD to the east
PUDZ-2008-AR-t4091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 2 I, 2009
4
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 16 of 119
-.
because these are existing gated communities. However, the Master Plan does not show any
access to Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to the west either, which is presently undeveloped.
The applicant contends that access here was deliberately omitted in order to discourage
future residents from making turning movements in closer proximity to the Airport
Road/Orange Blossom Drive intersection than the proposed principal entrance, which would
be located approximately 90 feet further to the east. However, the applicant would provide a
24-foot wide public access running the length of the western property boundary to link the
Lakeside community to Orange Blossom Drive, as shown in Exhibit C to the CPUD
document (and committed to in Exhibit F, Section I, 1.). This roadway would also afford the
vacant Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to the east with a potential access to Orange Blossom
Drive at the time that it develops. However, in accordance with Policy 7.3, it is staff's opinion
that the provision of an interconnection from the project itself to all of the adjoining
properties would be more beneficial for the future residents of the CCRC and the
surrounding residential projects and St. Katherine's Church, especially since such an
interconnection is easily feasible.
Policy 7.4
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of
densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.
The Master Plan identifies a sidewalk system within the proposed development and with
connections to the existing sidewalk along Orange Blossom Drive. However, the applicant
has requested a deviation from the LDC provision requiring sidewalks on both sides of the
internal and adjacent streets. It is the applicant's contention that placement of sidewalks on
both. sides of the entrance or internal access drives would have no meaningful purpose.
Comprehensive Planning staff disagrees and believes that providing sidewalks on both sides
would indeed serve a public health and safety purpose as well as further the objective of
Policy 7.4 (see the Deviations section on page 18 for Zoning and land Development Review.
staffs recommendation).
Economic Element
Policy 1.2
Collier County will support the opportunity for development and establishment of hospitals,
nursing homes and additional medical related facilities in order to promote a continuum of care to
enhance the quality of life throughout the County,
The project proposes the development of independent living units and assisted living, skilled
nursing and memory (dementia) care units for persons aged 62 and over, which would
provide a continuum of care that allows residents to age in place.
Policy 1. 4
Collier County will cooperate with state entities and other social service providers to encourage
the establishment of programs andfacilities that assist the elderly population of the County,
'._-.
The project proposes to provide a continuing care retirement community for County
residents aged 62 years and over.
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21,2009
5
_^__... ....__H._.~.
"-'^- ".,... -~-'-<. ..
"'M'~_'__~.~_.._
_.--
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 17 of 119
Policy 1.9
Collier County, in response to the current and projected needs of its residents, will encourage a
diverse mix of housing types, sizes, prices, and rents,
The project proposes to develop a continuing care retirement community comprised of a mix
of independent living units, assisted living units and skilled nursing units of differing sizes
and rates.
Transportation Element:
Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has
determined that the adjacent roadway network will have sufficient capacity to accommodate this
project within the five-year planning period upon provision of mitigation. Therefore, the subject
application can be deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP.
GMP Conclusion:
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed CPUD rezone may be deemed
consistent with the Future Land Use Element
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon
which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection IO,02.I3,B.5,
Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and
Subsection 10.03,05.1, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as
"Zoning Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The
CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use
the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request An evaluation relative to these
subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review
Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses:
Environmental Analysis: All environmental issues have been addressed, The applicant was not
required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for this project nor was a hearing
before the Environmental Advisory Council required because the site had been previously cleared.
However, because of the property's history of agricultural use since the 1960s and aerial
photographic evidence of the backfilling of a previous, third borrow pit, a limited Phase II
environmental assessment was required to determine if any of the backfill material contained
hazardous material or petroleum products, The results of the soil tests revealed insignificant
contamination associated with buried debris, and pesticide levels from the former agricultural use
to be either below the laboratory method detection limits or the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's soil cleanup target levels.
Transportation Analysis: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the application to assess the
proposal's potential impact on rights-of-way and access, and offers the following:
Orange Blossom Drive Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is link
143, Orange Blossom Drive from Airport Road to Livingston Road. The project generates 48 PM
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
6
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 18 of 119
,-
peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a significant 5.22 percent impact on Orange
Blossom Drive. This segment of Orange Blossom Drive currently has a remaining capacity of 252
trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the adopted 2008 Annual Update Inventory
Report (AUlR), No subsequent link of Orange Blossom Drive is significantly impacted.
Airport Road Impacts: The subsequent links of Airport Road, Segments 2.1 from Vanderbilt
Beach Road to Orange Blossom Drive and 2.2 from Orange Blossom Drive to Pine Ridge Road,
are impacted at 0.40 percent and 0.43 percent, respectively, Segment 2.1 has a remaining capacity
of 1,734 trips, and Segment 2.2 has a remaining capacity of 1,632 trips, Both are at LOS "C" as
reflected by the adopted 2008 AUlR. No significant or adverse impacts are identified by this
project on either segment of Airport Road,
Mitigation: The petitioner has committed to "pipeline" impact fees for both phases of the project,
and has agreed to pay the fair share of the improvements at the Orange Blossom Drive! Airport
Road intersection, Additionally, the petitioner has committed to reserve 40 feet of right-of-way
along the project's Orange Blossom Drive frontage for County purchase at a reduced price to
accommodate a future widening of Orange Blossom Drive.
In conclusion, Transportation Planning staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to the
development commitments contained in Exhibit F,
Utility Review: The Utilities Department has reviewed the application and has noted that the
proposed CPUD, per the 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update, is located within the
Collier County Water and Sewer District. There is an existing eight-inch water main on Orange
Blossom Drive, which is connected to a 16-inch water main on Airport Road, There is also an
existing 12-inch water main on Orange Blossom Drive to which the development proposes to
extend and connect. TIle County does not own sewer utilities in the right-of-way contiguous to this
project. However, there is an existing 16-inch force main on Airport Road. There is also an
existing six-inch force main at the intersection of Bridgewater Bay Boulevard and Orange Blossom
to which this development is proposing to extend and connect. It should be noted that any
developed portion of this project would be required to comply with Ordinance No. 2004-31, as
amended, and would be subject to the conditions associated with a Sewer Availability Letter from
the Collier County Public Utilities Division at the time of site development plan (SDP) or
preliminary plat review and approval.
Emergency Management: The Emergency Management Department staff has no objection to the
proposed CPUD but has noted that it would be located in a CAT 3 hurricane surge zone, which
requires evacuation during some storm events, While there is currently no impact mitigation
required, approval of this project in consideration of other development in the area would increase
the evacuation and sheltering requirements for the County,
Zoning Review: According to LDC Subsection 2,03,06,C.3, the Commercial Plamled Unit
Development (CPUD) zoning district is construed to include the entire range of uses permitted in
the General Commercial (C-l) through Heavy Commercial (C-5) zoning districts, of which ALFs
are included, However, LDC Subsection 10.02,13,B.5 states that, "In support of its
e,>_'
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 2 I, 2009
7
'.---
-----" --"
"_...__._~,- ~_.~_.--
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1. 2009
Page 19 of 119
recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's
compliance with the following criteria";
I, The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities,
The nearby area is developed with or is approved for the development of residential
and church uses, which are compatible in nature with the proposed assisted living
facility. The development would be located on Orange Blossom Drive, a collector
roadway, with access to Airport Road, a principal arterial. In addition, the petitioner
has committed to several transportation-related improvements, as previously noted
above and incorporated into Exhibit F of the CPUD documents, to ensure that the
project would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding roadway network. The
project would also be required to comply with County regulations regarding drainage,
sewer; water and other utilities. Therefore, the site is suitable for the proposed
development.
2, Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they
may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and
maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public
expense,
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County
Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the
CPUD document makes appropriate stipulations for the provision of necessary
infrastructure and for the continuing operation and maintenance of the facility.
], Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Based upon Comprehensive Planning staff's analysis, the proposed rezone may be
deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, contingent upon Zoning and
Land Development Review staff's determination of compliance with all LDC
regulations for group housing uses, It should also be noted that group housing such as
the proposed CCRC is not governed by tbe Density Rating System of the GMP but by
the FAR requirements for group housing contained in the LDC.
The Master Plan does not show any intel'connections to adjacent properties,
particularly to the undeveloped Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to the west, even
though FLUE Policy 7.3 encourages such interconnections when possible. The
applicant contends that access to Orange Blossom Gardens PUD was deliberately
omitted in order to discourage residents of the proposed CPUD from using it to access
the Airport Road/Orange Blossom intersection instead of the proposed CPUD's
primary access point furtber to the east. However, finding this to be inconsistent with
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
8
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1 , 2009
Page 20 of 119
-
the intent of FLUE Policy 7.3, staff has included a condition of approval in Exhibit G
of the CPUD documents requiring that an interconnection be provided along the
western boundary of the property. As shown on the Master Plan, the applicant has
already proffered a 24-foot public access easement running the length of the project's
western boundary, linking the Lakeside community with Orange Blossom Drive (see
Exhibit F of the CPUD documents, Section I, 1.). Therefore, in stafrs opinion, an
excellent opportunity already exists to satisfy the requirement of FLUE Policy 7.3,
which at the time of the future development of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD,
would result in an interparcel connection to that development and improve overall
pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation in the neighborhood.
As also noted by Comprehensive Planning staff, FLUE Policy 7.4 encourages new
developments to provide walkable communities, yet the applicant has requested a
deviation from the LDC provision requiring five-foot sidewalks on both sides of the
street. The applicant contends that the placement of sidewalks on both sides of the
entrance or internal access drives would have no meaningful purpose. However, staff
believes that the sidewalks would serve a public health and safety purpose and further
the objective of this policy. Therefore, as discussed in the Deviations section of this
report, Zoning and Land Development Review staff is recommending denial of this
deviation unless a condition of approval is adopted to expand the width of the sidewalk
proposed on just one side of the street from five feet to six feet so that it could
comfortably accommodate multiple users.
4, The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
,
reqUIrements,
As depicted on the CPUD Master Plan included at the beginning of this report (and in
Exhibit C-I to the CPUD document), the proposed use would be separated from the
multifamily residential uses to the north and the multifamily residential and church
uses to the east by a I5-foot wide "enhanced" Type B buffer. This enhanced buffer
would provide 20 percent more trees than that required by the LDC and also include
canopy trees at an overall height of 16 to 18 feet at the time of planting, installed closer
on center than the required 25 feet, interspersed with Cabbage palm and Slash pine
clusters. The Cabbage palms planted would be staggered between 25 to 30 feet in
height; and the Slash pines would have an overall height of 14 to 18 feet. A six-foot high
masonry wall would also be included within the buffer, as required by the LDC. As
shown in the line-of-sight elevations 1-1 and 2-2, contained in Exhibit C-2 of the CPUD
document, these buffers would aid in screening the development from the adjoining
multi-family uses.
.-
In addition to these buffers, the three-story independent living units along the northern
property boundary have been broken up into five separate buildings in order to reduce
their visual impact as compared to the massing created by a single, monolithic building.
Similarly, the lowest-profile buildings on the site (approximately 42 feet in height),
comprised of the assisted living and skilled nursing units, the auditorium and the
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
9
.----..----,.-,--
,n__,_ .'_'"__'
---'-...,"~"'-~-,,~
-._-----',
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 21 of 119
commons, have been strategically situated in this portion of the project where setbacks
from the adjacent properties are the smallest: 80-feet from the northern property
boundary shared by Lakeside and 90-feet from the eastern property boundary shared
by Bridgewater Bay. To the south, the existing single-family homes of Walden Oaks
would be buffered by a 20-foot wide enhanced Type B buffer, as shown in Elevation 3-3,
and further separated from the proposed development by a 100-foot setback and the
75-foot width of the Orange Blossom Drive right-of-way. Due to this increased setback
area, the tallest proposed buildings (approximately 60 feet in height) have been laid out
parallel to this portion of the site.
To the west, adjacent to the proposed 24-foot public access easement and the vacant
land of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, a standard IS-foot Type D buffer would be
provided, as required by the LDC.
5, The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development,
Approximately 15 acres, or 51 percent of the site's total area, would be retained as open
space, which exceeds the minimum 30 percent requirement of the LDC. Of this area,
5.18 acres would be dedicated to lakes, which are an integral design feature of the
CCRC's waterside environment. The remaining 9.45 acres, or 32 percent of the total
project area, would be dedicated to usable open space and include multiple courtyards,
walking paths, boardwalks, seating areas, two putting greens and a lawn for outdoor
games.
6, The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private,
As noted in the transportation-related Developer Commitments of Exhibit F, at the
time of SDP approval for Phase One of the project, the developer would be required to
pay the compulsory road impact fees and his fair-share of improvements to the Orange
Blossom Drive and Airport Road intersection as mitigation for the project's impacts. In
addition, a 40-foot of right-of-way reservation along the north side of Orange Blossom
Drive would also be requiI'ed for the future four-Ianing of this facility, as described in
developer commitment 1.3 contained in Exhibit F to the CPUD document (for which the
developer would be compensated up to $150,000 at the time of the first building
permit). Finally, development of the project would have to be in compliance with
applicable concurrency management regulations at the time development approvals
were sought. Therefore, the timing of development would not be an issue if the
proposed rezoning were approved.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
As stated, the provision of adequate public facilities would be required at the time
development approvals were sought. Furthermore, Transportation Planning staff has
determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Transportation Element
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 2 1,2009
10
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 22 of 119
requirements of the GMP. Therefore, subject to the conditions of approval
recommended by staff and the developer commitments made by the applicant, the
subject property and the surrounding areas would have the ability to support the
proposal.
-,.-.,
8, Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the
particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting
public pUlposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations,
Proposed Development Standards for Principal Structures vs. C-3 Standards of LDC
1,274,130 sq, ft,
1,672 feet
10,000 sq, ft.
75 feet
830 sq, ft,
609 sq, ft
305 s , ft,
700 sq. ft,
ilia
ilia
80 feet
100 feet
60 feet
90 feet
25 feet
35 feet
20 feet
50% ofbuildillg
height; but 2:25 feet
Ilolle
ilia
60 feet
60 feet
41.5 feet
42 feet
42 feet
42 feet
50 feet ...
The project's development standards are contained in Exhibit B of the CPUD
documents. As ALFs are permitted in the C-l through the C-S zoning districts, the C-3
zoning district was used as a benchmark to evaluate the proposed development
standards against the standards of the most similar conventional zoning district. As
illustrated in the table above, the proposed independent living units would exceed the
minimum Ooor area requirement of the C-3 zoning district by 130 square feet. The
CrUD would also provide setbacks for principal structures in excess of the LDC
minimum requirement of one half the building's height. Maximum zoned building
,,..-.,
PUDZ-2008.AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21,2009
II
--,
-- ---
. ~__...'U_
',_.__.'----
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 23 of 119
height for the tallest buildings on the site would be 60 feet and four stories over parking
(i.e. five stories). Although maximum height in the C-3 zoning district is only 50 feet
(tbe C-4, zoning district, however, would allow beights of 75 feet), the applicant bas
increased the CPUD's minimum setbacks to compensate for this greater height by
requiring setbacks to be least 50 percent greater than the standard required by the C-3
zoning district.
As illustrated in the following table, accessory structures would require either 25 or 40-
foot setbacks, depending on tbeir location. Minimum distances between accessory
structures would be at least ten feet, and the maximum height would be 25 feet. These
standards, as shown below, are consistent with those required by tbe C-3 zoning
district.
Proposed Development Standards for Accessory Structures vs. C-3 Standards of LDC
25 feet
25 feet
40 feet
25 feet
10 feet
O-SPS
0-10 feet
30 feet
none
LDC Subsection 10,03,05,1.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners",shall
show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to
the following when applicable" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the
Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
As noted on page six of this report, Comprehensive Planning staff has found this
petition to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the GMP. The
property is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict, the purpose of which is to provide
for bigher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where
existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. UI'ban-designated areas of the
county contain a vast array of residential and non-residential land uses. The Future
Land Use Element (FLUE), Section 1. Urban Designation (I) states that Urban-
designated areas are intended to accommodate community facilities such as churches,
group housing uses, schools and school facilities co-located with other public facilities
such as parks, libral'ics, and community centers where feasible and mutually
acceptable. As the proposed CPUD is for group housing for the elderly, and would be in
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CrUD 12
July 21,2009
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 24 of 119
,"_.
close proximity to the main campus of the Collier County Puhlic Library, First Baptist
Church and St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, this project would be consistent
with the FLUE of the GMP. Furthermore, FLUE Policy 5.3 discourages urban sprawl
to minimize the cost of expanding facilities by confining development to Urban-
designated areas of the FLUM and requiring changes in the Urban-designated areas to
be contiguous to an existing Urban-area boundary. As the proposed CPUD would be
in fill development, it would achieve these objectives.
2, The existing land use pattern;
The subject site is bordered by the multi-family residences of Lakeside and Bridgewater
Bay, to the north and to the east, respectively. To the west is the Orange Blossom
Gardens PUD, which is sunsetted but is approved for similar multi-family development.
Across Orange Blossom Drive to the south are the single-family homes and duplexes of
Walden Oaks. The southeastern corner of the site also abuts the First Baptist Church
PUD. As such, the proposed use would be complementary to this existing land use
pattern.
3, The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
Approval of this CPUD would not create an isolated district. As noted above, the
subject site would be infill development surrounded by other PUDs approved for
residential uses. Furthermore, the proposed use is cited as an intended use in the
Residential Subdistrict of the GMP in which the project is located.
4, Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change,
The subject property was created by the applicants' assemblage of available parcels in
the area. The aerial photograph on page three of this report highlights the boundary of
the subject property, demonstrating that it is logically drawn.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary,
Due to changed conditions in the area, the proposed CPUD would include the last
three remaining vacant parcels on Orange Blossom Drive west of Airport Road that
are zoned Rural Agricultural (A), as only one other A-zoned parcel, developed with St.
Katherine's Greeli Orthodox Church by a Conditional Use, remains on this segment of
Orange Blossom Drive. All of the other properties have been developed with
residential PUDs and commercial or community facility (First Baptist Church) PUDs
to support these residential uses. Consequently, the property is ripe for development
compatible with these uses, such as the proposed CCRC.
6, Whether the proposed change will adversely if!fluence living conditions in the neighborhood;
~
PUDZ-2008-AR-1409/, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
13
-,-._--
'---' -
-, .,'-
---^.~._..
-,~._.- ,.....,---
__'_'0"_
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 25 of 119
The proposed CPUD would not adversely affect the living conditions in the
neighborhood. With respect to increased traffic, the developer would be required to
pay road impact fees and his fair-share of improvements to the Orange Blossom Drive
and Airport Road intersection to mitigate for the project's impacts; and to provide a
40-foot of right-of-way reservation along the north side of Orange Blossom Drive for
the future four-Ianing of this facility. Furthermore, development of the project would
have to be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations at the
time development approvals were sought. The proposed use would also be similar to
the existing residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood; and with the increased
setbacks, enhanced landscape buffers and the conditions of approval recommended by
staff, compatibility would be achieved.
7, Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes
or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The applicant submitted the required TIS, which indicated the need for improvements
to the Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Road intersection. However, with developer
commitment I.5.b contained in Exhibit F to the CPUD document (to pay $1.4 million in
road impact fees upon the developer's pulling of the first building permit) for
construction of the necessary improvements, Transportation Planning staff has
determined that the project would not create any adverse traffic impacts, in
conformance with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. In addition
the developer has committed to providing 72,257 square feet of various indoor
amenities, including on-site dining; outdoor recreation areas; and twice daily shuttle
transportation services which, when combined with the required pedestrian
connections, would contribute to a substantial reduction oftraffic levels.
8, Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
The proposed change would not create drainage or surface water problems since the
5.18 acres of lakes integrated into the project's design would function as a water
management system and prevent drainage problems on the site.
9, Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
The proposed CPUD would not seriously impact light and aiJ" on adjacent properties.
As previously stated, typical C-3 building setbacks are 50 percent of a building's
height. Yet for the project's 60-foot buildings, the tallest proposed, the setbacks from
the adjoining residential propeliy boundaries would be a minimum of 100 feet from
the southern property boundary (plus approximately 75 feet of Orange Blossom Drive
right-of-way); 90 feet from the eastern boundary; and 80 feet from the northern
boundary.
10, Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
14
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 26 of 119
This is a subjective determination based upon a variety of circumstances that are
external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors
other than zoning; and zoning in and of itself mayor may not affect values, since value
determination is primarily driven by the market. Furthermore, although the project
would be consistent with the quality and character of the surrounding properties,
there is no guarantee that it would be marketed in a manner comparable to the
surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
a4jacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
The proposed project would be infill development, as all of the adjoining properties
have already been developed with residential uses. Therefore, the proposal could not
be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12, Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
As previously stated, the proposed CCRC complies witb the Urban Residential
Subdistrict designation of the GMP, and with the developer's commitments and
conditions of approval recommended by staff, would also be consistent with the
applicable regulations of the LDC. Furthermore, land use applications are subject to a
public hearing process to insure that they do not constitute a grant of special privilege
and to ensure are compatible with other properties in the vicinity. Therefore, the
public's welfare would be assured.
13, Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
., ,
eXlstmg zonmg;
Being wned Rural Agricultural, the majority of the property should not be used in
accordance with its existing zoning since it is in the Urban-designated area of the
FLUE and is surrounded by residential PUDs, rendering agricultural uses in this area
no longer appropriate. However, the other two parcels of the project, which are the
subjects of the companion PUD Amendments (PUDA-2008-AR-14090 and PUDA-
2008-AR-14092), already permit residential development.
14, Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
,,-
As noted in the "GMP Consistency" portion of this report, the density for group
housing is determined by FAR ratber than the density rating system, Consistent with
common planning practice, a multiplier of four times the usual residential density
range was used to determine the recommended density for the ALF. As the density
that would be permitted by the density rating system is four dwelling units per acre,
multiplying this number by the project's 29.25 acres results in a permitted density of
117 units. After applying the group housing multiplier of four, the recommended
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
I 5
----.
_....~-" ~. ,., .~--,
----"-_.~_.."
~ .___..'U._'_."
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1 , 2009
Page 27 of 119
density for the CCRC project would be 468 units. Therefore, the applicant's request
for 340 independent units and 80 beds is less than the commonly recommended density
for a project of this size. The surrounding residential communities, not being group
housing projects, are indeed subject to the density rating system and permit the
following densities: Oak Grove PUD (Bridgewater Bay), four dwelling units per acre;
Lone Oak PUD (Walden Oaks), 6.32 dwelling units per acre; Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD, 3.42 dwelling units per acre; and Citrus Gardens PUD (Lakeside), 4.0 dwelling
units per acre.
The maximum height permitted by the adjacent zoning districts is as follows: 45 feet
for Oak Grove PUD; 85 feet for First Baptist Church PUD (this height is for the
"Building Two" only, as amended by Ordinance No. 99-78, with other buildings
limited to 65 and 35 feet); 30 feet for Lone Oak PUD; "two-stories" for Orange
Blossom Gardens PUD; and "three stories" for Citrus Gardens PUD. Although the
maximum zoned height of 69 feet proposed for the CPUD is generally higher than the
surrounding permitted heights, staff believes that the scale of the project has been
mitigated through its design, which 1) locates the tallest buildings central to the site
and then tapers the lower-profile buildings towards its periphery; 2) sets the tallest
buildings back 175 feet from the only neighboring single-family homes, which are
located to the south; 3) breaks up the mass of the three-story units along the northern
,
boundary of the site by locating them in five separate buildings to reduce their visual
impact; and 4) provides for enhanced vegetative buffers adjacent to existing multi-
family uses in order to screen the facility from these properties. Nevertheless, as
discussed later in this report, two area residents have expressed concern about the
project's scale and its compatibility with the surrounding property.
15, Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use,
There are potentially other sites already zoned to accommodate the proposed
development; however this is not the determining factor when evaluating the
appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The proposed CPUD was reviewed and deemed
compliant with the GMP and the LDC.
16, The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification
Any development would requil'e some site alteration. However, the subject site would
require only limited c1eal'ing to execute the pl'oposed development plan due to its
fOl'mer use as agricultural land.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management
Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance, as amended
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
16
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 28 of 119
-
As previously noted, the proposed CPUD petition has been reviewed by the
Transportation Planning Department and the Utilities Department, both ofwhieh have
recommended approval of the project finding that it would not have an adverse impact
on the levels of service for public facilities.
Deviations:
In Exhibit E of the CPUD document, the applicant requests approval of six deviations from the
design standards of the LDC and has provided justifications to support them, Staff has reviewed
these requests and offers the following analyses and recommendations:
Deviation I seeks relief from LDC Subsections 5.03,02,E.2 and 3, Commercial and
Industrial Districts, which require the provision of a prefabricated concrete fence or
masonry wall between residential and non-residential zoning districts; and that this fence
or wall be between six to eight feet in height and located a minimum of six feet from the
residentially zoned district.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to instead allow an existing six-foot wall extending
approximately 350 feet along the northern side of the property in the Citrus Gardens
PUD, to satisfy this requirement even though it is not located on the subject property nor
is it a minimum of six feet from the Citrus Gardens PUD,
,-
Staff's Determination: Because the applicant would still provide the required six-foot
fence or wall a minimum of six feet from the Citrus Gardens PUD along the remaining
approximately 1,350 feet of this northern boundary, staff supports this deviation. Staff
does not believe that providing an additional 350-foot segment of fence or wall on the
subject property as required by the LDC would serve any purpose since it would merely
abut the existing wall on the Citrus Gardens PUD.
Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.02,A2, Sidewalks, Bike Lanes and
Pathway Requirements, which requires five-foot wide sidewalks and standard bike lanes
to be constructed within public or private rights-of-way or easements internal to a site on
both sides of said rights-of-way or easements.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to provide sidewalks on just one side of the project's
internal rights-of-way, believing tllat providing them on both sides serves no meaningful
purpose,
.-
StqfJ's Determination: The LDC provides four exceptions to the provision of sidewalks
on both sides of a project's internal rights-of-way (such as the site's being physically
constrained or having less than four dwelling units per acre, for example)-none for
which the subject property qualifies, Moreover, as noted in the GMP Consistency portion
of this report, FLUE Policy 7.4 encourages new developments to provide walkable
communities, As previously noted, Comprehensive Plalming staff believes that sidewalks
on both sides of the project's internal rights-of-way would serve both health and safety
purposes for the elderly residents of the CCRC by encouraging walking to the adjacent
religious community facilities and commercial uses, thereby furthering the objective of
PUDZ-2008-AR-I4091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
17
-,--_.
, _'_'________.M.-
..~'-~.__.._,,--_._..
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 29 of 119
this policy, Although Zoning and Land Development Review staff agrees, expanding the
width of the proposed sidewalk on one side of the street from five feet to six feet would
still achieve this objective by allowing a greater munber of residents to simultaneously
use it, without the need to construct a second sidewalk on the other side of the right-of-
way. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this deviation, subject to the condition that
the proposed sidewalks be enhanced by providing six feet in width instead of just five
feet.
Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4,06,05.N,l.a., Configuration of Water
Management Areas, which requires the naturalization of marunade lakes and water
management areas through the use of curvilinear edges but may allow an alternative
design if the design of the water management area is related to the architectural design of
the building.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to provide Jakes that do not technically fulfill the
naturalized edge requirement of this provision, however notes that they would not be
visible from outside the project due to the required vegetative buffers and/or six-foot
fence or walL
Staff's Determination: The proposed water management system clearly relates to the
project's overall architecture since the lakes would feature as a design element, as
evidenced by the number of proposed bridges, lakefront observation decks and
boardwalk. Because of this and the fact that the lake would not even be visible from
outside the boundaries of the CPUD due to the applicant's augmentation of tree material
by 20 percent over the LDC buffer requirements and the required fence or wall, staff
supports this deviation,
Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6,06,01.0, which requires minimum right-
of-way widths of 60 feet for local roads, in order to allow a 24-foot wide right-of-way
within a private access easement along the western edge of the property,
Proposal: The applicant proposes to provide a right-of-way along the western edge of the
property that would be 36 feet narrower than the 60-foot width required by the LDC,
justifYing doing so since there is hardly sufficient area to accommodate the two proposed
travel lanes and their associated drainage facilities for this proposed access road linking
Lakeside and the future developed Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to Orange Blossom
Drive.
Staff's Determination: Staff considers the applicant's hardship necessitating the deviation
to be self-created, resulting from a desire to circumvent the intent of FLUE Policy 7.3, As
explained in the GMP Consistency pOllion of this repoll on pages four and five, Policy
7.3 encourages all new and existing developments "to connect their local streets and
their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments
regardless of land use type," However, because the applicant would prefer not to
intercoilllect the project with the Lakeside community to the north, which presently has
only one access point on Airport Road for its 396 units, he is requesting this non LDC-
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
] 8
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 30 of 119
compliant roadway as an alternative means of giving that development access in the
event of an emergency rather than allowing them access through the subject property; and
even though this non-compliant roadway would provide an interparcel connection for
Lakeside with the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (when it eventually develops), the
applicant still refuses to connect the subject project to it, as encouraged by the GMP.
Therefore, because the proposed access would not provide interconnections from the
subject property to the neighboring projects, staff recommends denial of this deviation
unless the CCPC adopts staff's condition of approval requiring an interconnection point
to be provided along the western boundary of the property, thereby linking Siena Lakes
to the proposed access road and, in turn, the properties abutting it.
Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6,06.02.A. I, Sidewalks, Bike Lanes and
Pathway Requirements, which requires five-foot wide sidewalks and standard bike lanes
to be constructed within public or private rights-of-way or easements adjacent to a site on
both sides of said rights-of-way or easements,
Proposal: The applicants request a waiver of this requirement for the non LDC-
compliant roadway requested in Deviation 4,
Stqff's Determination: Pedestrian and bicycle access should be provided on at least one
side of the applicant's proposed access roadway so that independent-unit residents in the
western portion of the proposed CPUD, desiring to walk to the library or St. Katherine's
church, for example, would not have to walk approximately 750 feet in the opposite
direction in order to merely exit the project through its principal entrance/exit when an
access road would already be laying approximately 130 feet to the west, along the
project's boundary with Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, Because the hardship
necessitating this request is self-created due to the applicant's refusal to allow an
interconnection through the subject property, as explained in Deviation 4 above, staff
recommends denial of this deviation. Moreover, staff believes the request would
circumvent the objectives of FLUE Policy 7.3, which encourages the provision of
interconnections with adjacent land uses, and Policy 7.4, which encourages new
developments to provide walkable communities,
Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4,06,02,C.4, Bufftr Requirements, which
requires a 20-foot wide Type D landscape buffer adjacent to any external right-of-way.
Proposal: The applicants would like to reduce the buffer width required to 15 feet along
the 24-foot, non-compliant roadway proposed for the western boundary of the property.
Staff's Determination: Staff recommends denial of this deviation because the hardship is
self-created.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
,-
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on May 12, 2009 at 6:00 p,m, at the
Italian-American Club. Eighty three people from the public attended, as well as the applicant, Mr.
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
19
__'___ '"' __,..,m
."---- - ,,-~_.-
-~.-
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 31 of 119
Steve Nomes of Life Care Services, and his agents, Mr. Richard Y ovanovich, Esq" of Goodlette,
Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich and Koester and Mr. Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole-Montes, Inc.,
County staff was also present.
Mr. Y ovanovich presented an overview ofthe requested rezone from the Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD, Oak Grove PUD and Rural Agricultural zoning districts to the CrUD zoning district for a
continuing care retirement community. He also explained the requested companion amendments to
delete approximately 6,]3 acres from the Oak Grove PUD and approximately 5,85 acres from the
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD.
There was no opposition to the requested Oak Grove PUD or Orange Blossom Gardens PUD
amendments, however there were concerns expressed regarding the subject petition. Questions
asked were as follows:
1, How many parking spaces would be required for this project? The petitioner replied there
would be 608 parking spaces, with the majority underground,
2, Where would staff and guest parking be located? The petitioner stated that the facility
would employee 140 full time employees who would park near the assisted living
facility, Guests would park near the homes of the residents they were visiting.
3. Will the service road be both an in and an out road? The petitioner replied that it would
be,
4. One participant asked why the service road could not be located on the other side of the
property, The petitioner replied that there was a minimum intersection distance
requirement that could not be met if they moved the road to the other side of the property
and added that there would only be, on average, two services trucks per day coming into
the property,
5. Participants asked if Airport Pulling would be extended to four lanes, The petitioner
replied that this project is not going to result in four lanes and no traffic signals would be
installed,
6. The participants from the Lakeside community asked if the inter-connect road would be
built joining their community with this project. The petitioner stated that if the inter-
COlUlect road was built it would need to be built by the Lakeside Community (as noted in
this report, the petitioner has since agreed to build the road), The Lakeside participants
were very receptive to that answer, as they did not want the inter-connect road built.
7, One Bridgewater resident asked if the lake between this project and Bridgewater would
be filled in. The petitioner replied that the lake in question was actually on the First
Baptist Church propeliy, and would not be filled in,
8, The same resident asked what the building heights would be on the multi-story buildings.
The petitioner stated that the tallest building would be 67 feet and five stores. This
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
20
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 32 of 119
resident felt that this was too tall for the neighborhood, The petitioner stated that these
building would be built closest to Orange Blossom Road and landscaping would screen
the taller buildings.
The meeting ended at approximately 7:30 p,m.
Staff has received several letters of objection from neighboring property owners, attached as
Appendix I.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney's Office has reviewed this staff report, revised on July 23, 2009,
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPe) forward Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12248 to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCe) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the stipulations incorporated
into the CPUD document and restated below:
I. Irrespective of that shown on the CPUD Master Plan contained in Exhibit C-I, a vehicular and
pedestrian interconnection shall be provided along the western boundary of the property to
connect the project with the 24- foot public access road.
2. Rather than five-foot sidewalks on both sides of rights-of-way or easements internal to a site, as
required pursuant to LDC Subsection 6,06.02.A.2, only a six-foot sidewalk shall be required on
just one side of said streets,
3, All water and wastewater utilities constructed or extended within the public right-of-way shall
be conveyed to, owned by, and maintained by the Collier County Water-Sewer District, and
shall be required to be appropriately sized to service parcels that installation will affect,
4, Any cost of relocation, changes, or modifications to the existing utilities required or incurred
during the road improvements within the Orange Blossom Road right-of-way are the sole
responsibility of the developer.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff also recommends that the CCPC deny Deviation 4,
Deviation 5, and Deviation 6 as requested by the applicants, finding the. singular hardship
necessitating them to be created by the applicants' refusal to provide interconnections to adjacent
communities, and antithetical to the purpose and intent of FLUE Policies 7,3 and 7.4 of the GMP
andlor inconsistent with the provisions of the LDC.
APPENDIX:
I. Letters of Objection
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 2!, 2009
2]
,," ',.,--.-".-...
- '---'---"--
~.~ -
--'.-
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 33 of 119
PREPARED BY:
~~ 6
DA E
JO AVID MO , AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
7'2..5.01
RAYMO V, BELLOWS, ONING MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
7-25- 0 '1'
USAN M. ISTENES, AlCP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
7J .;I 4
PH K. SCHMITT ADM ISTRA TOR DATE
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the September 15, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
I
MARK
cv...~ t~-
, STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
s- ~ C>Q I
DATE
PUDZ-2008-AR-I409J, Siena Lakes CPUD 22
July 21, 2009
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 34 of 119
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COlLlERGOV.NET
6968
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
D AMENDMENT TO PUD (PUDA) ~ PUD REZONE (PUDZ)
REZONE (PUDZ-A)
D PUD TO PUD
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
To be completed by staff
APPLICANT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLICANT(S) LCS DEVELOPMENT, LlC
ADDRESS 400 LOCUST SlREET, SUITE 820 CITY DES MOINES STATE IA ZIP 50309
TELEPHONE # (515) 875-4518 CELL # FAX #
E-MAIL ADDRESS:BLEEKER@LCSNET.COM
NAME OF AGENT ROBERT l. DUANE, AlCP OF HOLE MONTES, INC. (& RICHARD D.
YOVANOVlCH, ESQ.)
-
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0 Ii] SID], rev 2112/08, rev 7/11/08
~~-,
-~'''------"'-
_."..~.."---_._,--., ,
---,,"
Agenda Item No, 8A
ADDRESS 950 ENCORE WAY & 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, SUITE 300 CITY NAeI:;~er 1, 2009
Page 35 of 119
STATE FL ZIP
TELEPHONE # 239-254-2000 CELL #
FAX # 239-254-2099
E-MAIL ADDRESS:BOBDUANE@HMENG.COM
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF
ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE
REGULATIONS.
I
ASSOCIA nONS
I
Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this
petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the
Board of County Commissioner's website at h!!p;//www.colliergDv.netllndex.aspx?!m.ge=774
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: LAKESIDE OF NAPLES RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
MAILING ADDRESS 2505 SAILORS WAY CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34109
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: LAKESIDE SOCIAL CLUB & LAKESIDE OF NAPLES
RESIDENTS
MAILING ADDRESS 2710 SAILORS WAY & 2506 SAILORS WAY CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP
34109
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: WALDEN OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MAILING ADDRESS 7098 LONE OAK BLVD. CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34109
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone () 1/18/07, rev 2/] 2/08, rev 7/] ] /08
Agenda Item No, SA
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: BRIDGEWATER BAY PROPERTY OWNER'S &I~EliR, 2009
ASSOC. Page 36 of 119
-
MAILING ADDRESS 3278 TWILIGHT LANE & 3051 HORIZON LANE CITY NAPLES STATE FL
ZIP 34109
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: OAK GROVE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
MAILING ADDRESS 3219 SUN DANCE CIRCLE CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP
I
Disclosure ofInterest Information
I
a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the
entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an
ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use
additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and
stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Old Barn, Inc., (Mark Bates-President)
10096
,-,
- Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11/08
'_..~--~--_.--
--,,~~---,,----,'-' -
.. .----......-------. -~_._...
~- , ,--.-
Eunhee Bates Living Trust
December 1, 20 g
Pa e 37 of 1 9
1613 Chinaberry Way
Naples, Florida 34105
Eunhee Bates
100%
c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the
trust with the percentage of interest.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list
the name of the general and/or limited partners.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Application For Public Hearing For pun Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2,/12/08, rev 7/1 ]/'08
,-
Agenda Item No, 8A
e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual orljJndj\l'll!joalsD09
Page 38 of 119
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
LCS-Westminster Naples, LLC 10096
400 Locust Street, Ste. 820
Des Moines, IA 50309
Date of Contract: 7/l 0/08
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 property acquired 0
yrs./mos.
leased 0 Term of lease
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option: 7 J1 0/08
,-
Date option terminates:
, or
Application FOT Public Hearing For PUD Rel.one 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/] 1/08
.-
-... --_._,^,..,
- - -~---- ,,~,,-,
-'..---"--'-'.
Agenda Item No, 8A
Anticipated closing date 6 mos. after date of final zorlinQ9mber 1,2009
"age 39 of 119
approval of site
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.
PROPERTY LOCATION
Detailed leeal description of the l!!QPertv covered bv the ap.plication: (If space is inadequate,
attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district,
include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall
submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum
I" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-application meeting.
NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions
arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be
required.
Section/Township/Range 01 /49S /25E
Lot:
Block:
Subdivision:
Plat Book 2696, 2793, 2500 Page #: 2526,2527,2522,0576 Property !.D. #:
00235680004,00235520009,00235560001,00236000007
Metes & Bounds Description:
Size of l!!:!!Jlertv: irreg. + /- 1,675 ft, X irreg. + /- 762 ft. = Total Sq. Ft. 1,274,206 Acres
+/- 29.2
Address/eenerallocation of subject l!!Q.Pertv: North side of Orange Blossom Drive, east of A+irport Road,
PUD District (LOe 2.03.06):
o Residential 0 Community Facilities
cg] Commercial 0 Industrial
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01./18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11/08
,
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Agenda Item No, SA
Dep"~~~"401 ~m~
Zoning
Land use
N PUD
Residential-Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens
SPUD
Residential-Lone Oak PUD
E PUD
Residential-Oak Grove & First Baptist Church
WPUD
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD/vacant
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject
property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If
space is inadequate, attach on separate page).
Section/Township/Range / /
Lot:
Block:
Subdivision:
Plat Book
Page #:
Property 1.0. #:
Metes & Bounds Description:
~,~~.
REZONE REQUEST
This application is requesting a rezone from the Non-Agricultrual PUD - Orange Blossom
Gardens zoning district(s) to the Commercial - LCS Naples CCRC CPUD zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property: Agricultural
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Continuing Care. Retirement Community
Original PUD Name: Orange Blossom Gardens PUD Ordinance No.: 92-75
I
EV ALUA nON CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis
and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration
of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone
.".".,
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/] 2/08, rev 7/11/08
. ~-,,-, ,-~
-.,-....-..--..-- ,_..."
request with specific reference to the criteria noted below.
materials and documentation in support of the request.
Agenda Item No, SA
In cI u d e ;ilwertJ:m: 1a00l09
-" Page 41 0"("119
PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section lO,02.13.B)
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE
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.
SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE
3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the
growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or
other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing
all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.)
SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE
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.
SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/'18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11/08
.".'.
8.
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
.. . '.. , Pag" 42 of 119
Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications or 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.
SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE
Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions,
however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact
the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being
requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed
restrictions.
Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public
hearing been held on this property within the last year? 0 Yes ~ No
If so, what was the nature of that hearing?
Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an
official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last
year? 0 Yes ~ No
If so, please provide copies.
NOTICE:
This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency"
has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The
application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the
application through written notice or ceases to sUQPly necessary information to
continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoninq for a period of six
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/] 8107, rev 2!I2i'08, rev 7/1 1/08
- '.. ._---~-_..,.
"."'~--,~ -_..~," ,
.._'~-~_.,...."..-
_,0""""',_,', ..,
Agenda Item No,
(6) months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further pro@@s~riin(il
Page '13 of 1
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 PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/] lI08
,..--
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS
FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 44 of 119
I
APPLICANT INFORMATION
I
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) LCS DEVELOPMENT, LLC
ADDRESS 400 LOCUST STREET, SUITE 820 CITY DES MOINES STATE IA ZIP S0309
TELEPHONE # (515) 875-4518 CELL # FAX #
E-MAIL ADDRESS:BLEEKER@LCSNET.COM
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): Orange Blossom Drive
I LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Section/Township/Range 01 /49S /29E
Lot:
Block:
Subdivision:
.-,-
Plat Book 2696, 2793, 2500 Page #: 2526,2527,2522,0576 Property 1.0. #:
00235680004,00235520009,00235560001,00236000007
Metes & Bounds Description:
I TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED
(Check applicable system):
I
COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM
a. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM
b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM
PROVIDE NAME
c. PACKAGE TREATMENT PlANT
(GPO capacity)
d. SEPTIC SYSTEM
C8J
D
D
D
TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED
I
~
a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM
C8J
Application ror Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2112/08, rev 7/11/08
" ---.--.-............-.-..,.. '
- ._.".__....~w ...,... --
b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM
c. FRANCHISED UTlUTY SYSTEM
PROVIDE NAME
d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL,)
o
o
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 45 of 119
o
STATEMENT OF llTlUTY PROVISIONS - page 2
TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED: 340 Independent Living Units; 80 Units
(assisted living, skilled nursing and memory care)
PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS:
A. WATER-PEAK 244 GPM AVERAGE DAILY 87,740 GPD
B. SEWER-PEAK 196 GPM AVERAGE DAILY 70,400 GPD
IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED
1 st Quarter, 2013
NARRATIVE STATEMENT: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and
schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a
specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If
percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved
shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional
,
engineer.
COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY DEDICATION STATEMENT: If the project is located
within the services boundaries of Collier County's utility service system,
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0]/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11/08
,._^
Agenda Item No, SA
written notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedica~<mn(['t!ll1i@l09
. Page 46 of 119
County Utilities the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within
the project area upon completion of the construction of these facilities in
accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the at time.
This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system
development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities
Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable,
the statement shall contain shall contain an agreement to dedicate the
appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems.
STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY CAPACITY FROM OTHER PROVIDERS: Unless
waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the
project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other
than the County, a statement from that provider indicating that there is
adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided.
-
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11108
,_.-
~" ~'-'''"'-
-.".,,---"
"....-.".,
.,,-,_.'
,
December 1, 20 9
Page 47 of 1 9
AFFIDAVIT
We/I, ________________________ being first duly sworn, depose and say that we/I
am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter
of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application,
including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other
supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest
and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We/I understand that the
information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that
the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not
be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed
complete, and all required information has been submitted.
As property owner We/I further authorize Robert L. Duane, AICP and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esq~ to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this
Petition.
-----------------------------
--------------------------------
Signature of Property Owner
Signature of Property Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of
_h_________, 200____, by _________________________who is personally known to me
or has produced ________________________as identification.
Application For Public Hearing For pun Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7." 11/08
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 48 of 119
.-_. ----------------------------------
State of Florida
County of Collier
(Signature of Notary Public - State of
Florida)
----------------------------------
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public)
~-
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11108
~~.--
--."---"""--''''-'''' ,
._~..~'''----;--,-'^"<."
'.---
COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 49 of 119
The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property
commonly known as property located north of
Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, FL 34109
(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 commercial planned unit development (CPUD) zoning.
We hereby designate Robert L. Duane, AICP and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., legal representative thereof, as the legal
representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in
the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and
authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning
approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property
until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County.
The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of
development of the project:
1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed
on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development
rezonmg.
2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and
stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in
part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County.
3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or
safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development
Code,
4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and
restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within
the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions.
5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms,
safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development seck equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance.
The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development
and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms,
conditions and safeguards of the planned unit developmcnt.
Owner
Ov,mer
Printed Name
Printed Name
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this
day of
,200_ by
who is personally known to me or has produced
as identification.
Notary Public
(Name typed, printed or stamped)
(Serial Number, if any)
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0]/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11/08
I
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS)
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
F':!r!Je S6 u19
~',...-
A TIS is required unless waived at the pre-application meeting. The TIS required
may be either a major or minor as determined at the pre-application meeting.
Please note the following with regard to TIS submittals:
MINOR TIS: Generally required for rezone requests for property less than 10 acres
in size, although based on the intensity or unique character of a petition, a major
TIS may be required for petition of ten acres or less.
MAJOR TIS: Required for all other rezone requests.
A minor TIS shall include the following:
1.
Trip Generation:
(at build-out)
Annual Average Daily Traffic
Peak Hour (AADT)
Peak Season Daily Traffic
Peak Hour (PSDT)
2,
Trip Assignment:
Within Radius of Development Influence (RDI)
3.
Existing Traffic:
Within RDI
MDT Volumes
PSDT Volumes
Level of Service (LOS)
4, Impact of the proposed use on affected major thoroughfares, including any
anticipated changes in level of service (LOS).
5, Any proposed improvements (to the site or the external right-of-way) such as
providing or eliminating an ingress/egress point, or providing turn or . ecal
lanes or other improvements.
6, Describe any proposal to mitigate the negative impacts on the transportation
system.
--
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/] 1/08
-------
-"..,_..- , .~~._"_..-
----"'"--.
".,--.-.
u___
Agenda Item No, SA
7, For Rezones Only: State how this request is consistent with thEP'lf~\!looabIel09
Page 51 of 119
policies of the Traffic Circulation Element(TCE) of the Growth Management
Plan (GMP), including policies 1.3, 1.4,4.4, 5,1,5.2, 7,2 and 7,3.
A Major TIS shall address all of the items listed above (for a Minor TIS, and shall
also include an analysis of the following:
1. Intersection Analysis
2. Background Traffic
3, Future Traffic
4. Through Traffic
5. Planned/Proposed Roadway Improvements
6, Proposed Schedule (Phasing) of Development
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS) STANDARDS
The following standards shall be used in preparing a TIS for submittal In
conjunction with a conditional use or rezone petition:
1. Tri,p Generation: Provide the total traffic generated by the project for each link
within the project's Radius of Development Influence (RDI) in conformance with
the acceptable traffic engineering principles. The rates published in the latest
edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report
shall be used unless documentation by the petitioner or the County justifies the
use of alternative rates,
2. Trip Assignment: Provide a map depicting the assignment to the network, of
those trips generated by the proposed project. The assignment shall be made to
all links within the RDI. Both annual average and peak seasonal traffic should be
depicted.
3. Existing Traffic: Provide a map depicting the current traffic conditions on all
links within the RDI. The AADT, PSDT, and LOS shall be depicted for all links
within the RDI.
Application For Public-Hearing For rim Rezone OJil X/07. rev 2/12/08, rev 7/1 ] /08
,-~,
Agenda Item No, 8A
4. Level of Service (LOS): The LOS of a roadway shall be expressed in t~f'm!l1tM tf@09
Page 52 of 119
applicable Collier County Generalized Daily Service Volumes as set forth in the
TCE of the GMP.
5. Radius of Development Influence (RDJ): The TIS shall cover the least of the
following two
areas:
a) an area as set forth below; or,
b) the area in which traffic assignments from the proposed project on the
major thoroughfares exceeds one percent of the LOS "C".
Land Use
Distance
Residential
5 Miles or as required by ORI
Other (commercial, industrial, institutional, etc.)
o - 49, 999 Sq. Ft. 2 Miles
50,000 - 99, 999 Sq. Ft. 3 Miles
100,000 - 199, 999 Sq. Ft. 4 Miles
200,000 - 399, 999 Sq, Ft 5 Miles
400,000 & up 5 Miles
In describing the ROI the TIS shall provide the measurement in road miles
from the proposed project rather than a geometric radius.
6. Intersection Analysis: An intersection analysis is required for all intersections
within the RDI where the sum of the peak-hour critical lane volume is projected
to exceed 1,200 Vehicles Per Hour (VPH).
7.
Background Traffic The effects of previously approved but undeveloped or
partially developed projects which may affect major thoroughfares within the
ROI of the proposed project shall be provided. This information shall be
depicted on a map or, alternatively, in a listing of those projects and their
respective characteristics.
,-
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2112/08, rev 7111/08
------....,..
-~_."~"_.---.
>'V."_,.,. __,.....-"....,.... ""
~...~.__."'--
8.
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 53 of 119
Future Traffic: An estimate of the effects of traditional increases in traffic
resulting from potential development shall be provided. Potential
development is that which may be developed maximally under the effective
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the Collier County Land Development
Code. This estimate shall be for the projected development areas within the
projects RDI. A map or list of such lands with potential traffic impact
calculations shall be provided.
4 Through Traffic: At a minimum, increases in through traffic
shall be addressed through the year 2015. The
methodology used to derive the estimates shall be
provided. It may be desirable to include any additional
documentation and backup data to support the estimation
as well.
10. Planned/Proposed Roadway Improvements: All proposed or planned roadway
improvements located within the RDI should be identified. A description of
the funding
commitments shall also be included.
5 Project Phasing,;, When a project phasing schedule is
dependent upon proposed roadway improvements, a
phasing schedule may be included as part of the TIS. If
the traffic impacts of a project are mitigated through a
phasing schedule, such a phasing schedule may be made
a condition of any approval.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/] L'OS
Agenda Item No, SA
9
Page 54 of 1 9
PUD REZONE APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Application information must be clearly printed or typed. All material must be
legible and completed in full. All requirements must be submitted as indicated
below, unless otherwise determined during the pre-application meeting.
GENERAL APPLICATION
To be completed in full and to include the following information.
PUD list of permitted uses
Development Standards Table
List of proposed deviations from the LDC (if any)
List of Developer Commitments
~ -".
Refer to LDC Section 10.02, 13.A.2 for required information
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES WITH THE ADDRESSING CHECKLIST FORM
Provide copies of notes taken at pre-application meeting
DIGITAL REQUIREMENTS
An electronic version of all plans and documents on CDROM as part of the
submittal package.
FEES
Required fees in accordance with current Fee Schedule. Check shall be made
payable to: Collier County Board of Commissioners.
Application Fee
. PUD Rezone = $10,000 + $25 per acre
. PUD to PUD Rezone = $8,000 + $25 per acre
Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review = $2,250
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01118/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11108
,.~-- --..
-. . .'-'-.--
'-""_'_""" _.. n._~_"
-',,,'- " ., ,---
Legal Advertising Fees
~ BCC = $363
~ CCPC = $760
Fire Code Review = $150
EIS Review = $2,500
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 55 of 119
Note: An additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of
the original fee.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by Section 10.02,02. of the
Land Development Code (LDC) , or a request for waiver if appropriate.
AERIAL PHOTO
Whether or not an EIS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken
within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one. inch equals 400 feet,
shall be submitted. Said aerial shall identify plant and/or wildlife habitats and their
boundaries. Such identification shall be consistent with Florida Department of
Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System. Additionally, a
calculation of the acreage (or square feet) of native vegetation on site, by area, and
a calculation and location(s) of the required portion of native vegetation to be
preserved (per LDC Section 3.05,07).
BOUNDARY SURVEY
Boundary Survey, no more than six months old, abstracted, signed, sealed and
prepared by a Florida registered land surveyor, showing the location and
dimensions of all property lines, existing streets or roads, easements, rights-of-
way, and areas dedicated to the public.
HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
A historical and archeological surveyor waiver application if property is located
within an area of historical or archaeological probability (as identified at pre-
application meeting)
PUD MASTER PLAN
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01,..'18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/1 ]/08
In compliance with Section 10,02..1 3.A.1
Agenda Item No, SA
of the Land Development Code:?ecember 1, 2009
Page 56 of 119
~~.,
OWNER/AGENT AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit signed by owner authorizing agent to act as representative. Must be
signed and notarized.
WARRANTY DEED
A copy of the last recorded deed, contract for sale or agreement for sale, or a
notarized statement of ownership clearly demonstrating ownership and control of
the subject lot or parcel of land.
ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING
Architectural rendering of any proposed structures
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS)
Unless waived at the pre-application meeting, a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) must be
submitted, Please refer to attached TIS standards.
UTILITY PROVISIONS STATEMENT
A copy of the Utility Provisions Statement with required attachments and sketches.
Please refer to attached form.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
Including all Appendices and Exhibits
PERMITS
Copies of State and/or Federal permits
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the
growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy
or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully
explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that sub-district, policy or other
provision.)
NEIGHBORHOOR INFORMATIONAL MEETING (NIM}
Required per LDC Section 10.03.0S.E. Please see attachment for requirements.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2112/08, rev 7/1l/08
-..._.._~-~~._-
- .-. ~._. -.,,- ~.,.-' ,-",
'..._.,~~._, ,...-'--.'
OTHER
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 57 of 119
Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional uses and
identified during the pre-application meeting, including but not limited to any
required state or federal permits,
CONTINUANCE FEES
In accordance with Collier County Community Development and Environmental
Services Fee Schedule, when land use petitions are continued, the following fees
will apply:
Requested after petition has been advertised = $500
Requested at the meeting = $ 750
Additional required advertising charged in addition to continuance fees
BE ADVISED THAT SECTION 10,03.05.B.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES AN
APPLICANT TO REMOVE THEIR PUBLIC HEARING SIGN (S) AFTER FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINAL ACTION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE
REMOVE All PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISING SIGN(S) IMMEDIATELY.
---~-._-~_..._--
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0Ill8/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11/08
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 58 of 119
__Om.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETING
LDC Section 10.03.0S.E
Applicant must conduct at least one Neighborhood Informational Meeting (NIM) after initial
staff review and comment on the application and before the Public Hearing is scheduled
with the Planning Commission.
Written notice of the meeting shall be sent to all property owners who are required to
receive legal notification from the County pursuant to Section 10,03.05.B,8.
Notification shall also be sent to property owners, condominium and civic associations
whose members are impacted by the proposed land use change and who have formally
requested the County to be notified.
A copy of the list of all parties noticed, and the date, time, and location of the meeting,
must be furnished to the Zoning Department and the Office of the Board of County
Commissioners no less than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date of the NIM.
The applicant must make arrangements for the location of the meeting. The location must
be reasonably convenient to those property owners who are required to receive notice and
the facilities must be of sufficient size to accommodate expected attendance,
The applicant must place an advertisement of the meeting in that portion of the newspaper
where legal notices and classified advertisements appear stating the purpose, location,
time of the meeting and legible site location map of the property for which the zoning
change is being requested. The display advertisement must be one-fourth page, in type
no smaller than 12 point and must be placed within a newspaper of general circulation in
the County at least seven (7) days prior to, but no sooner than five (5) days before, the
NIM.
The Collier County staff planner assigned to the project must attend the NIM and shall
serve as the facilitator of the meeting; however, the applicant is expected to make a
presentation of how it intends to develop the subject property,
The applicant is required to audio or video tape the proceedings of the meeting and
provide a copy to the Zoning Department.
.-
Application For Public Hearing For pun Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11/08
--.-. ,. .'->~_'"."-
""~--".'- .-,--
Agenda Item No, SA
As a result of mandated meetings with the public, any commitments made by fue;ElI"ptIJlidatltJ09
shall be reduced to writing and made a part of the record of the proceedings prd'~'a~aO{619
the Zoning Department, These written commitments will be made a part of the staff report
of the County's review and approval bodies and made a part of the consideration for
inclusion in the conditions of approval.
RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at its
expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of
Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that
contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition
and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in
the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and
shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, F5, A recorded copy of the
Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development
Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice,
Application For Public I-Tearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/1 ] i08
, ~', -
-
PUD AMENDMENT (PUDA)
PUD REZONE (PUDZ)
PUD to PUD REZONE (PUDZ-A)
APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
- ,
December 1, 20 9
Page 60 of 1 9
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER
LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
#OF NOT
REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRE[
ST ANDARb REQUIREMENTS:;. ."f.;;' >,/'. ;, '" ;;'c<<" .
1 Additional set if located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelooment Area) ~ IT
Cooies of detailed descri tion of whv amendment is necessar 24
Completed Application with list of Permitted Uses; Development 24 cg] D
Standards Table; List of proposed deviations from the LDC (if any); List
of Developer Commitments and Statement of Compliance narrative
~ownload llcatlon from webslte for current form)
Pre-a Iication meetin notes 24 cg] D
PUD Conceptual Master Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 v," x 11" cOPv 24 cg] D
Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 W' x 11" 24 D cg]
cC?EY.
Original PUD document/ordinance and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF 24 D cg]
AMENDING THE PUD
Revised PUD a lication with chan es crossed thru & underlined 24 D cg]
Revised PUD application w/amended Title page w/ord #'s, LDC 24 D cg]
10,02,13.A.2
Justification/Rationale for the Deviations (must be on a separate sheet 24 cg] D
within the application material; please DO NOT include it in the PUD
documents)
. ,...,., , ,,' . '
2 Co les of the followln ': .'
Deeds/Le ai's & Survev (if boundary of orioinal PUD is amended) 2 cg] D
List identif in Owner & all parties of corporation 2 cg] D
Owner/Affidavit si ned & notarized 2 cg] D
Covenant of Unified Control 2 cg] D
Completed Addressin checklist 2 cg] D
4 CODles ofthe followln : ','
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital/electronic copy of EIS D cg]
or exemPtion iustification 4
Historical Surveyor waiver request 4 D cg]
,-
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11/08
. ","~.,
__ . ___._.~n
~-~"'-- - , ..,~-,-
....- ,- "~,-
Utilit Provisions Statement w Isketches
Architectural renderin of ro osed structures
Surve ,si ned & sealed
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver (with ap licable fees)
Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min scaled
1"=400'
Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans (CDRom or
Diskette)
Co of Official Inter retation and lor Zonin Verification
If located in RFMU (Rural Frinqe Mixed Use) Receivinq Land Areas
Applicant must contact Me. Gerry J Lacavera, State of Florida
Division of Forestry@ 239-690-3500 for information regarding
"Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan", LDC Section 2,03.08A2,a,(b);,c.
----------------------------------------------
-----------------
Applicant/Agent Signature
Date
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11/08
-""",'. .,
4
4
4
7
5
o
~
~
~
1
~
1
o
o
o
o
o
~
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 62 of 119
EXHIBIT A
-"',
PERMITTED USES:
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in
part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
L
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:
L
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses
and structures, including, but not limited to:
CONDITIONAL USES (Optional)
L
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table below sets forth the development standards for land uses
within the (type ofPUD) PUD Residential Subdistrict 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.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11/08
-._---~
,
-.--.
.. ._,..~~,--"-~_.....,..,-
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 63 of 119
EXHIBIT B
TABLE I
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12,/08, rev 7/l1/08
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
SINGLE
FAMILY
SINGLE
FAMILY
ATTACHED &
TOWNHOUSE
lWO-FAMILY,
PATIO &
ZERO LOT LINE
~._,
MULTI-
FAMILY
CLUBHOUSEI
RECREATION
BUILDINGS
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MINIMUM LOT AREA S,F. PER S,F, PER S.F. PER SF PER S,F. PER
UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA S,F S.F S,F N/A
S,F,/D,U,
MIN FRONT YARD FEET FEET FEET FEET N/A
MIN SIDE YARD FEET FEET or FEET 0 r FEET N/A
MIN REAR YARD FEET FEET FEET FEET N/A
MIN PRESERVE SETBACK FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
MIN, DISTANCE BElWEEN FEET FEET FEET FEET or N/A
STRUCTURES BH,
whichever is
reater
MAX, BUILDING HEIGHT FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
NOT TO EXCEED
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
FRONT FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
SIDE FEET FEET FEET FEET BH
REAR FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
PRESERVE SETBACK FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
DISTANCE BElWEEN
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
MAX, BUILDING HEIGHT SPS SPS SPS FEET
NOT TO EXCEED FEET
-
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0]/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/11108
"'~-~----"
"~-"
.-,^.'
-, -'~~"---- "-,,..
S.P.S. = Same as Principal Structures
BH ~ Building Height
Footnotes as needed
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 65 of 119
GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to
individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association
boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards.
Setback may be either feet ( ) on one side and feet ( ) on the other side in order to provide a
minimum separation between principal structures of feet ( ). Alternatively, if the foot ( )
setback option is not utilized, then the minimum setback shall not be less than feet ( ) and the combined
setback between principal structures shall be at least feet ( ). At the time of the application for
subdivision plat approval for each trac~ a lot layout depicting minimum yard setbacks and the building footprint shall
be submitted,
TABLE II
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA Sq, Ft. N/A
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH Ft, N/A
MINIMUM YARDS (External)
From Immokalee Road Canal ROW Ft SPS
From Future Extension of Collier Blvd. Ft SPS
From Western Project Boundary Ft Ft
MINIMUM YARDS (Internal)
Internal DrivesIROW Ft Ft
Rear Ft Ft
Side Ft Ft
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN Ft. or sum of Ft
STRUCTURES Building heights *
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Retail Buildings Ft Ft
Office Buildings Ft Ft
Application for Public Hearing For PI JD Rezone 0 I /] 8/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/ II /08
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA
Sq, Ft ..
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
9
-
MAX. GROSS LEASABLE AREA
Sq,Ft
N/A
* whichever is greater
** per principal structure, on the finished first floor.
EXHIBIT C
MASTER PLAN
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/l1/08
--- _._-"----~
'U,__
'~__'M
- - ...-....-.,----'"-.- ...~,-
EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(If legal description is too long, add as an attachment)
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 67 of 119
Application For Public Hearing ror PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7/1 ]/OH
,...,....,-,.
-
EXHIBIT E
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC
,-
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07, rev 2/]2108, rev 7/] 1/08
-----------..---
--....~~.. ...' .. .-.-
_.- ,
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 68 of 119
-.....
EXHIBIT F
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMITMENTS
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 69 of 119
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/] 8/07, rev 2/12/08, rev 7ill/OS
,',' ',~ .-'.''''"
Blank
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
Page 70 of 119
APPENDIX 1
--"~
MossJohndavid
-
"----
---~---
From:, Ruth! Zenk [RuthiZ@comcasl.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 200912:24 PM
To: MossJohndavid
Subject: Sienna Lakes
May 16, 2009
Re: Sienna Lakes PUD rezoning
To: John-David Moss, Collier County Department of Zoning
From: Ruth Zenk, Lakeside resident, J-206
As to the rezoning request, I feel that there are many more negatives than positives in
allowing to developer to move forward,
1) The density Is very high, even though this is allowed for the type of residents that
will occupy the buildings, Consequently there will be more autos, delivery trucks,
repair men, visitors, mail trucks, etc, than there would be with a low density PUD,
Orange Blossom Drive is not built with turn lanes necessary for that type of traffic,
2) A 69 foot, 5 story building is simply not appropriate in the middle of lower
residential buildings. A building that high should be placed in an area that has mixed
usage and/or on a main highway closer to the city where there are other mid-rises, It
is not a good comparison to quote the height of nearby churches and hotels,
It seems the developer is asking for the maximum allowed and then expecting you to
stretch the rules for his other desires, Orange Blossom is a needed "cut-through"
road and was never meant to have "commercial" type of entrances on it ""such as
the wider section west of Airport Road that has the library entrance,
During my 33 years in Naples, over 20 have been spent in real estate with half of
those working for developers, I understand their problems and all that it takes to put
together a project to be proud of. I have seen all the good successful projects and all
the flawed mistakes, Usually a mid-rise is built where there is wonderful view, This
building at Sienna Lakes would be looking over all the lower roofs in the
neighborhood, Who would want to pay a premium to be on the 4th floor? I suggest
that the developer find a more appropriate site for his project
I strongly hope that you will deny the rezoning of Orange Biossom Gardens,
-
5/18/2009
._---
-,~."._-.
---.'.._--, -
-.--.-".,
Agenda Item No, SA
De~€Ir Af ",009
Page 7r of 119
MossJohndavid
....
-
---
To: shirley Iindenbaum
Subject: RE: Siena Lakes
---- -------.--
".~_'H__,_
_._'_H'~_'",____--,____._____~ , ._
From: shirley IIndenbaum [mailto:shirleylkside@embarqmail,com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:55 AM
To: MossJohndavid
Subject: Siena Lakes
As a resident of Lakeside (for the past 20 years) I wish to express my concern about the proposed
development adjljCent to our property called Siena Lakes, [attended the open forum to hear their "spiel"
which was done quite professionally and overwhelmingly, [was amazed at the density planned for such
a small area and the height of the bldgs. [also attended, years ago - the open forum for the proposed
development directly across from Lakeside on Airport Rd, now called Sao Grato and at that time the
height for all bldgs was 3 stories. Why should a 5 story structure now be allowed? The speakers in
regard to Siena Lakes tried to come across as "good neighbors" but when asked if they could downsize
their plans their response was "financially it could not be done" so greed is their motivation, not "good
neighbors", Please, in your deliberation, consider the high density proposed and the impact on the
established neighborhoods, .
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Shirley Lindenbaum
Vice President, Lakeside Carriage Homes
2781 Citrus Lake Drive, #101
Naples, FL 34109
email: sbirleYI~isle@~m~tar.Qmi!iJ.fQm.
239-566-9483
5/19/2009
.,." -
~UI~IIII .. I" . I II!
.,," ,. ,~- ,,-~~_..,-_......,,~, "".'"""-~-~-~'--~---'--'--'------~~
,:;.::':;:::::::.
.'..
....
Agenda Item No, SA
December 1, 2009
.. ~72of119
~ntby;
7/24/2009 5:21:12 PM
P"ge 1 of2
...,.....' ....-..-,... -..
, , ,
jiiJ'yzt iiJfw
......-. ,. ...,
",
..................
.c._.............
," ,.... ..
....
. .............. ."
....:... .."...::........ "."';'
,-,
,tpim.'OaY.ia'MQS$
ii~~.iaooer:
~~(jiimit1>>'''':';-'COlll~
'~!iP#:fil~i'~~P~~: ,,"", ..,
NflP'i$;/f!I;:~4i~ ' . ,. ,."" , ',""'"':''' . , , , , .
... ...
:~ $i~j~~~td~~iii~ 1>Q~Z~iOOg":.lli~1~~11:
.....,.... .......:.... . ..... ..' .:... .. . . ...
'.....~""":'M "",' .",,:: :,:' ::::'::"',, "::',:";,: , ,: , " , ,,' ",
~l'.mt'~; - n~(: :';-:';-.;;:;; . -- ':".': . .'. ..... ...... . ..... ... . .'.
. . . .
.... .. .
,....:.:.:.:,.~........~~'''''~''''"~,..~.....~._~ ..: .~..~~"..... .....~ .., . , . .~. ".. .
..__'.' .....,.. ._, . ""--_.. '''''. .'. , ... . ......... _ ...._......._ '_"""'" . ,~''"_' ......;+ .........~.... . _,...~., ... ........__R_
. , . ......... . '" ............ '.', ........'. . -........... ..... '1
:. ,~;".i:*~blim'iltie:nd'ihe,lielli'i: , Si\>hiiiluI<id fQrAuiilliii'6.:.We'aI'i'wrili.<n:1ti ~
" """,,,,, , " iii"" '" ' "," ,,,,, ",','5" ,~'rr:""",
..'.il~t~~iilil;~lwb"e1;Y.~i>lIr!il;~9.r-~C:Siiiriil'p\i*~~th(i ,
, ,:.. "~('&' ';"fuilit'i!,"~:'i1tiiiiilreb:;";;";;ielI'S.ito''''''bujlif'$ ai:.iiiSii:ill ',Jiiilli ot1lii!: .
llf~PO"",."~''''".""",~..,,,,,,, '-'''''''' ""'",~~' ,,' l:l!!.I . .,,~ . ,
. '~i~'ilnd~:iI"\'imi~Qf\"!ii:.Q"e:\<lsw;j,,)mtil!r'Ii>Sl;i'eeti: t-ali.:eBit1e:fitiitt ~,','
..ov~~iiiiUdfugs; .... ...... .. .. ..... ..................' ..........
,... '. .. ."' ," ,_.. .
. .. ,.. .
. .'.:.... ..:' ...::.'.:,:::'. .>. '. . ..,' ~.' ...: ..:: . .... ....... '.. . . .
....(rlii!:sli:iiii::"": :k1iii:~~1Jl':~iX\Wfi.<P,II:WWg.@i~~:""'n~.of:fu~wlll&i;=l~'
. 'tn":iliii€bViii'gjjii.x;;'&t~UiUis'('m41ti~""' 'iill1~~:S~''WljM'' ",j $~be:
.. ~ .. .....'. . ":';.;.':. ..' ..~~.... '~"""'" '...... ....."....~....,.. .,~. .:.,.....:..
ioi'lctYen~n~ lj~'llllii$(ililiii~.~nd"oI; li~);~~l '@t~iJt\')'~~~i'~~ 1~; ~~ :UWilfiD
~eYcir.~"i,\WMt#liil\ll!~$ji;\>l1oprol~~)\l~m~~!!lJ!1dOJ;~illi'm;.i/liLt. .,
..' ..~r '''',ii~~f&iEf; oom""'hhllii,tliiA:l".il':,i."l.\f\ 1m.u;.p.lnae;i~:IM" :lliclilti
(!1 ~p ..~ .,)}pp, ~ .... ,,"'P , v.. ...,~, .)
~~'~t;W(iiJ"" ::.JHtOb.W'tfuittiieS'eha~ecfJi rlti:lara.:a'tiiiiv~i\!II ....
:p .. ~, " mm"p"" ../.,.,1"""" . rl:...., ,1", ...,
. . ..~;G~~\W&:Viilop~t\'lIl1:irditit\~i__l;i1Ssf~I[~faciii;y:~~ci~it~.
..i\~r6iiiti.l1.;.&'r:~~~~I~~\~i~I~"~~~rlin!l.();.I>>;l(\*lilf.~l\i:~tis'Cif.<)1l.
. \lwll~QJil!llh.\ii1)!\:~'l!l\Sl.iii;@l!'~mg:~litY~!l\l>lliTitl\l!:l!tlJll~wli\t:utmesl:call!iO)l"8Qd
jjililtcil~Wh<i!'$'il~ie~fufii'Pi()~.,;.~~m1},~~%,~Q1\:~ilill~~'eili~ ...
.. . , . .,. ,.
.. .. "Ai~i,;&J~.i&~~~f~~ ~it~:"~~ ~ft~~~iilktli~~j;;~r1;r";'(;{)mmi~ti
... ... .......n..,.............._.......,~.'?(:r~\~..,' ...'.,:,..... :~~, ........... ....~ I. 1/.. ...~....~, . ".
. .(t!:l~'~'1~lif~h~'!ll;\K;I!llum:~W'I'!!1:.~e.:l;J.\!li\l!~~~l..,m.\!It;.>l'~I"",\dl,~:
resi&(1i1iiar~~i~~i!Sj1\II(jWS:41:~~,t!t~~~:!,\ai,:,~~ti~,Nf~... .
," .. ",~"\",,c';";l,':'<:"" ;'l..;,;;,<,~..'tali ,'.d'.:-~.':;.:.;..7"" :-,lnioC ' ,.', 1iIi"-f<""":,"'tti"'-'="',,""-: oill'ti ',: '
,"'<4":;I~,!:lfee~"...,." , ~ ~,,"~'~!?f\'l., ,,,~9'\'Y., ",......",,1', ...."'!'i','W-'~\" ,"; , , , ,
\~Wilrfulii9'f~biilh~!i:iiiI*IA\'!~~P~.witI'fur$*e~.m:the:'h"eigiif.;,ri;l:lY:'..'.. ..
b il'~,,,~,"ii\q"lidJtlrl:tXiliirti~1h~fu.i;llID:':huiI!l'''~!iWifldQmbiaieihe,,.. .. ..-:
. . Jl...~-I-p.~.....~~. ..~.......... . ....... .... ........".,.......... ....~'#o...:...., ....,..
, , ,,'"~...~':": ~'~":;"""""':,,...""':""" ,:......,,'.t.'.':~"'"'"..,m:"'"',.".....m" .." "..t.....~'w..tbe:'''l!lt'Gf,
"'f''''''''!''~ll...,..,,~~~ :,:"l'Il.lli!!ll>.'."",'!'~'",,,,:-,.. !U'i,......., ,~.y,~'':J': ~"',:""'",,
, . ,,,,~~,wm1"tb,te1!tI~~I~IPI!llghl:lorboll,d.,:,.. ."",'", ".." , ,
._~_. ..,.,. ,.. . . ...,.,. ____ '-.0 ._'__. . '. . ... . ..... . ... .. ....;,....~"~I.'w-,...''"~.~_
.. ., .,.._.,...',..'.H'."'....,.~."'.l-~H.'............_~,..... or . .._,...--:-" ..... ... _ ... ... '-"-~"""""'~ _...,....';.....;,;.:.;.'... ....___'._r.._...._.... .,
. ... ..... .~i'i~" ili'ih~ '~' ,btiliAlij. ~~;;eiidifuiih~fjillldhi.hit.Iit.~~i:iKi' ..,.. . .
" , ,': ..,~,,~,w !:;", ,SiI,lU., ",,1M gj;i, ',"" .., '," ' ", ,,, "" ",g",~"" "","" ,',,"
. ""..~~ri".~;'P~1ti~:ih*'y \\ii"';alOOi~tl!i!.Il!~~(lt!l1lilie.$fl4~tX6lil'1~heigh! '
.lilIDiMiiHii!hi;;C-3" "iiimsiiietWlJii:h;ii~il:i:li':IDtl:ie"lt""'tt.;.' 'i$.'d~WlM' '
..~iiWili;i'i:$!~~~.t~il,kWi6~~~I\.liW't~!'~t~P6S#f~~I~ct.1.~wi~f\lrt~~
$_ ,Il:i'lict, ' ... ... . . . . . .
.P-. t
~r;;:i~~~~si~~W::!hr.,gep6i<'s::\:qhtiiut;l~li:(i.m1;:i~ Q~(l.,~~\"':e:b(\i1iliPs li~ghls, , .,
.s.. .ilici>cl::lv ....'. tei:'~~!lm\iOO:iiiLM:SliriOiili4#ig. ._'. 'itiiiiiit,;3lii:i:iii'llii~atk"':
~ .... "'j,p.a :',.' .;..... . ," ...:' ....... ".... .~ .'.n ...l ". ....,..... '.__' ,." " ..~. ,..
... . ~i.i~,4ism~~,.lta\~:~<m~itlg~~W'. tlI'e<~uDlM':Ilie1iil1l\1in~ai:1i:lb)' me
. : ,~N.:anrit>ii"'\r~iifive.inilr((<~, ' , . . . , "
,... .....';.. ..' ...4...;......, . . "'.,-.,..-
;ijf~theil\W~lQii~'$lil1ilisj:ji,i~Ji~:l~i\~~jj:~~\1;JiiPiiiiiW~i1i;it ijiIliifrMi'Cli!itl9":
.w~.i';lciolis!l:t,!~IUl"em'!icir\f<lti~1MSiji,,!i::~~;.l;~:t)i~.~ff.rt.td;~y.:by a
~~I~~;fi6\~~tbj),tl~li-it~;:iIWi~~#.il!l\!1Y f~# a#iiill~~)lw;ulltlliitri.crlhal;1Shol'
filM "~iHii'~ri"mliiilii;':";j<,jt:'" Jii;:i1iil"'.a(!ili:tlmilil:Set~"'''"''.Th 'Sf ...: ...' 'iii'" "~i:i .
, , J~""""", ,",,' "" ,~'" "fiIJ"J. ,,,, ,,' >1""." ,c. ' t:1IlI Pllrc .lssm"
. .. .' . ., ........., ...t..........'.. ...... .... .... ..
. ",. ..' .lllldt~hOOli:Smllii:!MciilllOin'a:coli)m~~~;cl~:t6:$,MillJidlirles;M:9.;):di(i:'
.lI:;l;i~tCfNd~ib~~;\i?ck~re~jIi;ltl~..tful:~slliitimP:aiiidibci1idi:tlgs:tluik/.re'> ... . :.:
..: . "."ti"liiiiii'1nJ'eeilill1li: .... ., ':" . ,. ., : ';,: ..: . ,: """"
.': '.:.'" .......'..... '.. .'
.,
::"<:;"::'::::--::'-:'::::.".; :..
, ,
:_........:..;...;:.:..;
... . ......
. ."'"
'.
__H
'" -
.;' ::-.
, "
-.--, ... -_.
-.,---.---.., -,
, -.."
Sent by:
",
7/24/2009 5:23:58 PM
Pege 2 of2
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 73 of 119
..'.........
. . m._. ',_..__:........,,,..,,-""..".v....___~,..,,'.........~.d'~f'...'.'.," ". .'
. "~'.":':'... ..........." :;::.::":":'t..~;.;;;:~-,. .'.:............:. ::...- :.:.:.:.:.;::::::-.;.:::::.:;:::.::';:.:..;:..'.... ',",',' ',,' .,'" ":.' ,';";'-;;" .:__ '"n__. :...... -~""J'"
" .,,' ':SiiOOM.."="lt'\!if\.~":ili''',dW~'''"'~ii;''''i''''''''',:.l<ir.:I\ii,~'(j~"Ce&'' ~"" 'vO<
" ",,,,,,,,,,,,,","'.ll,,,,,, ".",,, .,~ '""~"",,,:""'....:, P!t'~" ,,, ,"""" ,,,,, ., "~.,,,
,,"":':i).,'i!Jio.'" ,", ',", t.;,,::k.:' ',' ';"'liQ'i:i:o:j';j;! , IU'UF_~_"-'":' 'le&,IIiOl'l1tO;~C(l;Clt
' ,', ".'C" ,,,,,.,",,,,,,,,pr~:fl'l':"~"""lW~,,,,,,,:,,,"',~,,,,,,,~,,,",,,:,,,.""""",,,,,Ac:,Sl:j;I.,,,,.,,,"", , ",,,c. ",,, ,
. ... . ~IQw,:niie.l:iiillil~ill'S;ei\a:Jiiilli)&:tWi)iijjth"!iiijil'i1!iji>Y;l}liitdffi li4t~ac.'lliim'tQ.':
, " ,'" "",,' '''' ,"" ,;."", ,,,',,',',',, "'""',,,,""",",'" ,""",,,."""" """'~" ,'","", .:.,r:ll!i""",.,/""" ',,,, '''~' ,
sUrffitLllk~lIii,f.~,tbl:!'""\\~"",b"'''''''''''':l!t,,,''' "".:;" ' :;ll!!v~'"";("""'~iOt' " ,
. , ,""', "',"", ."" ',',',"",,' ',"" ","",' ',' ",.,,,, """,."""m",c2""""','w" 'ev!\;:" ','" ..'1""",-", PI<!' ~~r.'','~~'"","" ,,~.,""
.~:lS:M:Wtmilii!R'Iil~''!@#!!iiif~riWi'lPi1,:rM;iilij4~,Ili;;'~IP:.;r<:iv.I(l~:~%iijOrI.i
. . "'..~;llii; ..... "iniihlJ .......,....... i::Aii;;.:r8~:hj" .~i.;,iJ'~yife.,;" ;;', ';::;':,: :;';;;';;1Idi .
~ """.,.mm,\ "d',~"", , ".1\, ,"" II :q~I\_ 1lG<
.lharij~t&et l.1iiili: ro.tici',l!iii. ,dtJili,j,~iic'e)A:j;\iiiit$ii~.' ... :.~16 :jO;fciit~itffio\i1:i
""'d .,_..C'''.H""""~, ...... ...... ......... .""d"."..~ ....v,.. .............
iilIP..;:.~:.ro."""uowa:~,.""'liliiJ.u~;.mD('''"~''.~.h.,',did~~::,:,
~~~AA#~'~,~}iffij;j(C4~J;ffi~~1~&CFUpl1~I:~\i.;;~tililt. . "'.'
1l1e.";':;;';;;'""':,&ill'r<<,~wil.:iiliJ:iii" ' ;;';;"'li;.>'.;te. 'O(y','i.,,;l;;';> "":':SkincH' 'm,
..",!.'!'~~.., ""'" ""," ,,~9!:~,~,\>.l . "'M,~,."'~~,1l.f "",,~fr.9.,~.., ""
l' ~$fl~/O~~1;il~nl!i:"j~'lItlooj;'Il"~":""',fl '1b~:"lifti:Wo.uld'~~diilfum.
,a, ,""", ',' "'",''''',,, , ,~:~u....' ~,.",,,,.~,, ,..,,"" ,,,,,, , ",
iliil:s" " .. ...; .. . 'lit . 's/ri>~r :.. ...e:ili~:e.m:$:liirdi~blt~ll~iiflh .j;,'.' ... ...'ii:;.S1.~h '
",.~~..\)1Ig", .. ..t:!g\\l,"" ..""",,, , , ...... ..... .",,,. ,g.II~~" ..;\:,
JililM.i'iil,fWiiuJd navij;"preatiGe tlieV:iiilbil~ o61lii ~if!t\~hiiiitSCitilil: ,~;$t6:iybiill&liiS$,
NOOI"""ft,oIi:.reili&SOOviIhat-1.e r.. s;..i.. ....'".'lfuff,n"i!idl,trds; . ...
n,id" ",.." , "'..pllJli,l....~~,. ,l1d .,...
'." ',. , ','" - . ," ...
. "..... ". ...".,.,
'As: ~miiiliii: lI14i'f,~.Ptitt.~lre G!>~1js$j*1i j$,r~qUii'e.dmilD~~p!:liwti4ci:Qi;i"iit!:$iuili.~'
ilitiiJiiiiciJjWi!inii6~ ciltenii f~c1\i.' fhcth ,tiied ii~CJiii ~irWltlti,h~'
....d.."''''''''ddd,' .... ~ Vt:J:..:l<f.ll..d.. .I'\S....... ..... . Y: ...
in.flu.m~Hri~:poDilJ,lio:m;i.n.\"lie: ~ighbomj)ll!J..(cn!eii'kll'JJ;6)a;tIl.\ii~ll~,~~'~liql~l!\t
'''Ii~riri'''''mQUtGrsCllli.fwi'llj:'the''''''''~:<if'lh'., , 'ciri"bbilio~(ii i~ni.l;ii:fl.14> :flieR. on:
''''''''-''""'''',"''"'' "", , ",,"~, ,\;iR..., . " l, ',' t-, ,W,
wiii:ilii&& \liiltihe~ iWii<iri~i:ill1\'1!ll'iiim;e! b-e~iilii .lii(,;i,hOOi' e:rthti bla.1cll';~';. .
: . . ...... . .'R" "" ......'d. ...........,.. -. c" . ., ,'. ........ ",' ,.., ".".. 'n" .....p........... ,.........".' ...., .... .......~,
1MN~:~~Ii~~~Il.~!\hWWetl ,,1lgj:iI!!ivefjllfl1ir5!iclii~clli1~'bllity~Yithilii;. ...
.".ej~a~iia",~~gnli>: 111ellClily;qfili!! Pi:~#9l).Tfu:'j;;~""",j~"i.llu~'fl!lter{",iiii;b:, .
. .~:~eil'.'fiiP~.t!i~.{{~IdQ?ots.~itt~CQllIlm$i~ill.'~ltO~Cl\lst1ilis.anG .\~il'#ikJhe:
qMilfu~!tjn~~)~~r(aelii.:'q ...... ."" ..... ........ . . . . .... "".... ."""".
- "-'''': ". ':,::::,';"'<:::"";'-.::.":';"::'-:::'::"":':'-:'..':..:.::.::'::,....': :.".:.......'.,....:.. ,-'-,:",. '-..-........." . ...
,. .. ,. . .
.. ... ..1\Vi:'Mndii~J~,ijfue:m~;ii6;~~t'ihA~rl~lbdii~;ifil.i;;,~>'....
. ." "., "PP",.',~""""""g;..'"""""'""""."",J~,"""""Slil~."" L, ," .. .
.-'-.. ",j::....~ U,;~:q,ili\'iin~i'iiiid~i."\\"'itt\~~4Q;~i~~~'j~~~~\i;~~~~~i4~~~;@~~i~... ........
: :'. , ...... '::.; :?::;-J(~:::::;;.:.;:;: :r7:::~;2'~ ~~'.~: ~:':r~ .f:'" ;h~~:.::::t.~::-::~~~,::<~~~::;"...: /.:.:i :.:: ":': ' ;.:~:;:: ::" . :.:"7'~.<',~~.,::< .>~:~_.:':>:::~:d,:::;~+~>.: ,~'~~.~:.:.:: :.:~.~.'. :.r~1.:.......:...
.< ...lig:llllil~ioii:.veililJi!jtiii:CiitiMrii~tli\Il~f}~pi!d~~ili#l,}iTilirl,.sijfcn~X~a;i~~~# . ....,. .
< .~Jl~ii#~~~l;>~i';,~:~iian~i~~ro)Nitn:~,;ii:lij:9-"IJil1~g#lii~~i#ii\l:~e: ..... ..
.~lim.~I1it~ie~~'Jh<;:(:otrlti!~ty fllid~i:li!d,plaliliingjjii~iptei;.irt..st!iDi'~
SIlliill~i6 the:,di:\~l~p~r..~ diliiire i'GrtiiCi1l:imllnl pri:Hitii:' . ..' .. .
'" " .. , . ." '.
. . . .
<
.~:
W~~~(.~~~tl1~.d~~i/!lI~yiseit~.r~fu~.!i;l~~i#,~~..f#i91t.'i;j.\"$#",'ii~'i:t.
.~ 1l\lil.@Y~:PPi'ml pti.!iel)iliro:.f.ID:!liiiil:tijm.l!'bb\Xl~llii'i;jnea.Diia(i:l-deli;g,,',ib;.~ ~il'f
llrini~pi(,Jciiii,Jij;j.i@:iti'xillliihci~\ji1:i>lliidlni~eii~l~(.d;~"tc;r( tiie iI\iI frOOLt\Wr.;-
'~..iIs;.~!'lll\.liY'l.hil'IAI\9P<1~J{)P!li:~:qM~lii14c\1(illO!lh~l~tiIi~~fi;!;\~ .
J>1$io~~iijitj~,,*iW\ll":mli{i ",;it1iih'~4'6t~.app~lcilblid;'tli~ l;eq\iesied:te~~;
"
,
, .... ,. ,..... ..,.., ""', ~".
'".. ,.
, .......
~
,
",,"""':""'i;.:
./,
...." ': "".
.. ., . .. .0.
J . . ....../ . .... ..q .. .H;\~l... H. .... / , . .. , .
-' ' .... l i .. ~fJ~ . ,'. ,;. ;." '. 'n ......... .' .. .... " .., .
;' ':,'. ," .~;.f' ".";' ,'" :. &':.' _ , . ,. :. . :''''~ ". .......: '.", ~". ','.' . .... :: ".", ..; '-.
':;''Ji. ... :... <.()'"i'"i):2,;":j/~,;<~'"J}: .. ,. . . . . .,
'.'~.J'.'''''':.'''1i'". ..',.n,"",',..."",:r. . /~.:,' ,~~';..'.'-' ,. '''~\':'~:Jt:,j;._. -.-/;;,;.':';;~. .'..:....r..,;r:- /u. ;i:.l'"
,.,,'".:., '1:-. {';;6'~4dd> I "''''''':'''' "-',., . . ..'. ,.",.
'."',.~-',., .
-,"..'"
.....'... ..
, -..
,.....
.,
"""',
. .
"",
, ,
,,-,.
_.",
"
ti
....",' .
,:;:,,;:,:,,~.,,-::.,
,""'...".....,
. ...
. .. -.
i.I ... ~f
.RY.v;f;.,~::e;.
'.
.
, ."...~_.,..- -
.
GOUl S. JI/P'
t-?o, /1~ 986-
, rt "fr- ..,01"1 /6 30/
CL-d "'-C.-""'t I
c;-1.~- ~ ~, 07009"
l")k ),'-f-(IU '" oO~L YJ~:
yJ ~~.:r..L r:?L.B./1<'~
eJ-~e'," & ..p~0rLV'"'1 {J."71Vnr~-.
o>{J>OD /7. ,fJ~4t..,
>'Lt,~{ FL.. .3 '-{IO tj.
(J3N3J3~
~~~~
v.-?~v tv \.J-~~ ' ~L-I.-, y~
, h~ &Jl;:)f ~v r I 1 A1rA-*-<-. ' old' 7~'~
~-<-J:- 0::& ~ ':X~-L- !;aL~,
. .
W~
,
-UC."'4'--'" 6-.~ .6.. ) :;
~.
,
,
~~~
. (f
.,/ ~...Jt- ~ U~ ~'--. V~ 4.-",-,,-
.~ '6-~-"'~~~.~h~ ,-Cf~
,.p",,7 '
'=" ~#--v...R--<J ,
~ r~~ '~J..- d '.--(~-"-rJ-U:CO -4,(fAV
a-'--~h~. .' r.-t" -t--J~ ~-<-u/~~_
/..:if'J.1!. /-<<J c0 ')<i-n,~ r<A.cr rr;;t; 0
c'~-I c.:~ /7A",,1! /,JJ..o,"~;;G,J ~--'L /~'-"'?.~ tLv.A'J
..,
,. ?(Ul-<__~-.I-
,
.J
'/"1
j-:;:; ,A' -..." /),
,- V-',J ~-e-r'-4J ~j.. ~J-<"J f,>.. ' 0f
. /,"-"'.......,.
/1- ,
. I
:4-~;.....(A-J.J.;r
f} , .
. . \/'1 _
. . rJ <L
-A-&J...1,;::;~j... .1,...... <,'j) /l-tf/Aj
----""--
-~,.""-
,^_..-._~,.."
.--,.-.... --
-_.."-,....,
,.._.,,.~.~ ... ,
-,~. ~~.,,_.~ -.".-
Agenda Item No, 8A
DEp~J'rof ]2009
Po1'ge 75 of 119
MossJohndavid
-
----,
From: EPCantor@aoLcom
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:20 PM
To: MossJohndavid
Subject: Bridgewater Bay Community
Hi John
Please note my position in opposition to the location of the Service Entrance you are
proposing for the east end of the development on Orange Blossom Drive.
The Service Entrance will interfere with the quality of life for Bridgewater Bay home
owners if it is adjoining that community. If however it is positioned on the west end of
the deveiopment next to St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, the service road will
be next to an open area not even near the church and not near anyone's home.
This should not be a difficult change to make in your building plans. It is however of
major concern to your future neighbors living in Bridgewater Bay Community.
Thank you very much for your seriolls consideration of this matter. I plan to attend the
Hearing scheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2009 at the Government Center.
Copy to BWe Property Manager
Copy to BWB Property Owners Association
Ellie Cantor
3021 Driftwood Way
Bridgewater Bay #3103
Naples, FL 34109
Phone: (239) 594-1091
--
-.._-
7/27/2009
67/27/2609 11:06
5085405102
UPS STORE:
Agenda Item No, 8A
Dec~r 1112009
Page 76 of 119
r"'
2895 Citrus Lake Drive
Bldg. 0 #202
Naples, FL 34109
July 26, 2009
John - David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re: Siena Lakes CCR,C CPUD (Petition DUDE - 2008 - AR - 14091)
Dear Mr. Moss;
We are the owners of unit 0202 at the above address, and will be unable
to attend the hearing on August 6th. We are concerned about the impact of the
.---.
,
referenced project on the surrounding communities as noted in the letteT to you
from It Zelinka/C, Grossman dated July 22, 2009.
We would like to add our support to their letter and also request that any
approval of the Siena Lakes project be conditioned on a redesign as noted therin.
Respectfully yours,
Sheryl L, O'Neill
---
- --'-_._-'''''~-'-----_.
-_.~...,-
.___u
....._.._-""~-
- "'_.~-
JUL-27-e~ e4:1~ PM
-......
CIGARDELIVERY
18602387014
Sl~ven and JoAnne Hladek
Email: elnc.dc!:ll.lIs.ba..f1c.r.l}..r
llilr
~--
,
,
,
.__%.:.:-
_.~.
-...-... .-
July 26, 2009
]1'~l\.Di.:\'id Mo.;"
I)nl\dpai Plant1~'r
('(,l!lt<r C011l1!Y Pl~\I'tjl\'S Cummis~inn
!.~(I(J S(:nh I fors('~/10l' Drive::
:-.1l\;;k'~, -'(. J.f!O~
l(<.:' ':il~n<l L~s~.C:(B.C (,P(;.[,1.le.ltli!,i.~l'].pt.:.!~:r'~Q~I~:.;1B.:)4091)
rx:.," :',if \t(j~.",
WI:! O~306 at 2895l Citruli l.akc: Dnve and ,Jle !l.ltInng Ihi.' proilC:":~ ,)y,::'1~'r', 111
I.ck\~.<;id... \\-ho will he most llfkt!tcd ~ the SiL'l1a.I,llkC'S projci;t.
.'\;, \w ut\." unubll: to :1ticnd th,,;: hearing ~cncdlllctJ 1\))" I\\t~\lst 6. we an: \VT'llin~ 10 {!~pn'S5
(lur ~O(:rj\>u~ .,:'(lnt'Cm" fl;ll.Olf\iing twu vc:r)' lrouhling :1;J'("('.f!l ollhe Sienu pmject: the
P"P~:iIl! t(ll;onstnlG'f II: Sl"dc,<; of il1tl,\rconn~{:lt'c1 5.stn1}' tpllildin~~ o.t;u)~s Lhc width \)rthc:
~iH'-. tmd I/w ",hM-'11Ce or an ~-flt!ctive Vhlu.d barril'" kl .'>Cr~~(,11 Lakeside from thc~C'
o..'cr:;ill;-dollildi"l!.s
nJl:~ gi~ll<1 projCt1 \\it! .;om:du 420 Ii"jtli!, ur:i!s. l,,;"llS than 20% or1h~~ will be a.'isistcd
1idl'lg IJflil,... Ovt"r 80% of the unib (indl,lding ttll:hose in lbe 5'~1ury hl.lifJil\g.q will De
mdl:!'K;'r.~knt Hvirtg unlLs ilhat is, CtmdQli pr l'Clltal unit!i}.ltI )'OUt Mllr..:h Jl, ~009ICttt;':T to
tk~ dl;'\'\.'J~pt'r yvtJ ""tcd. I,hat th~ Siena pruj~'! luab m.)1"e like condvs with an ALP
(alisl.~t('d Ii \'ll1g fadlity) c(lT!lponc.,: t.Mn llTl A Lf '.\-'jth WI eLF (iml,,:-pL:ndcnl 1]"11)8 tifcility)
':(ll~~pOIlI,'III. WI: a~Tc~. It is ()hvimlS rhlll th\~ Si~r1{1 pr>:ljc."Cl is prirmuil)' :i (''OH\'~111kmal
c~,ndC)ml;'llll1t dC'\'cl('~ml'nt v.i1h ll.reltl!i\'d)' sm~! a.~sjm'.d living fal"ilil)' alml"Kln~r.t.
A"C'\')fd;~1~1>,. illl)' e~\.:t."pli(tn:; LIt d~\lj.lllil\l'1s fl('llTl ;a1J\il1~ Or code rC"quircmcnb bl4-'icd Qn
the NIIJc."d hclJ)~ fin mr.is,~'.d livlzlg ft'lciJily should be 8rantcd with ulmo-,):l ":itUtk'11 and
lilnihoJ it. \....hl:lt jj; Ilrpr-lJpdalC tOf" pr(lje-d witlJ 1mI)' it :m% AI.'" compoll("flt,.
A~ l\tltl..'d il11ho.~ stafl' !"t"j,ort (the "Rcp(II1'") ur lnt' Collier ('nl,;lll)' Planni"& ('OfMl;:i<;ion
(In\.' "Cor'lllliS'ij(l!1"), Ih~ rlI,l.'1imul11 hci~':111 \)fthc b[Jlld;ng~ pcrmliled In the surn.')!!1l1ing.
iCs:dcmit 1 c-uillmunjljl'~ are us rol)n""s: 45 fef,1! at KridgewJl('t B.1Y. '10 rl.~l nt Wuldcn
Oab l1lld UllL-c storic.~ at l.11k~i~k Thcl'I.."fNe, the S.stl)(Y buildings proPl).'>l.'C r'lf Sirn;\,
which wi\! ~ 69 je.;t high "..:-~\.'(diJ\g tu the R\:tM:lrt, will rlLt t:x~eed lk nC'i~:h1 of an,Y
building In llw ti1ln'{)uflliillg C(llllIllUllili~;s, Thest: S-Slol) buildinus will dOlninatc 1tlC
IMd:olC"upl' und he \:i.~iNe from m~n)" oftll\: hlJml.'s in the are... Clearl~', they wi!! Ix: \1ut <~t'
l>~ll!C with the: m\l~tin~ acighhvtboOlI.
fly.." '\,l~:!:
I
.........,
"
...")
_....
.-:1'" r"
C/t
,',
.
, ,
.
""
','
" ,
,
""
:',.,. .
~ ,.':,'.
"
, : '~,
'. '"
oJ ....
r .:'l;.
'.;":'..;::-
t '..
,." .': .:~.
.... .'''-
.":":'.
,- ",
...,....1
1: t. :~"
" ,.
""-)'
: '.'
,.,...-
;,,'",
.r'.'
""
,
, ,
",'
':.;,'
"
"
;
,
""
, ,,"
. (,. '.
..' ....'
.l ;',
. '> "
. '.J'
:"..,<
. ~ .'..'
'.~ ..:/,
..,
,
'.1
......
JUL-27-B9 134:2B PM CIGARDELIVERV
1861323871314
N~t only will thcs,c5-story. b~i1dings exceed the ma.ximLUn buiJdinll heights in the
adJac,clIl ,comnU~Dltlcs, ,they ,wll! also ~ubstantjaJ ~y exceed the 50-foot huilding height
alfow~cl In ttc, (.3 ",Onmll dlS/net whlch, accordinG to the Report, "'as used by the
p~annlnll ~talT af, the "bcndlIna,'"'' to evaluate the proposed developmenl standard! for the
Siena prl!1",:t
We find no ba,,,s for the Report's conclusion Ihal these excessive bUilding heights,
significantly gte,>!,'r thiln allowed in thc surroullding community' and in tbe "benchmark"
zoning district. have beell mitigaled by Ule placement of the buildings and by the
"cnhanced" vegetative buITer,
Fil'St. the d<;vdoper"s plan shows the five.'1ol) buildings massed in a line Trom east to
weot across the southern por1ion of the Siena property, Altbough brok,'n up mid-way bY'1i
c('uplc of 10" Cr !'uildil1gs, they essentially' Ihrm a wall creating. vIs"al barrier that is not
mitigated i" any meaning.ful way by the additional set-backs, 'lb., Sienll parcel is small
and the homes in lhe surrounding cOlhmW1;tics are close to it, bOllndaries; hellce no
1lIl1ount of additional set. back can really mitigate the visual impact of btliJdings that are
almost 70 feel high,
Second, th(l\lgb we welcolne tltc developer's proposal for an "enhanced" vegetative
buff Or, the ,proposed plantings appear to be inadequate, and secm de!igned more to screen
the low.risc buildings 81 Siena from the two and three,story buildings al r .akesicle tlmn to
screen Lakes.idc from the five-story bUildi~s at Siena, The developer prnposes to install
treeS 18 feet high and eloser on center than the required 25 feet, and to provide 20% more
tree'll than the minimum requirement A tree 18 feet high will do little to scrc'ell.a building
that is 69 feel high (50 feet higher than the tree), Even if the tree grew to 30 fee'!, it would
still be almost 40 fectlower than the building roorline, Moreover, the line-of~site
elevations ct>nJained in EX]lib!t C-2 Qfthe devolopcr's CPUD dl)ClUJ1Cnl show' only tiwl
the proposed bum'r would aid in screening the three-story buildings at Siena from
Lakeside, 'TIlcre are nQ elevations sho"lng that the buffer would SCreen Lakeside from
the 5.story buildir,gs. To mitigate the effects of tile illereascd building heights at Siena.
plantings would bavc to reduce the visibility of the upper floors of the 5-slm)' buildings,
Nothing is ofii'red to ,how that the propoSl'd vegetative butTer will do this,
As nOlcd in the Report, the Conunissilln is required tQ consider proposed z.oning changes
in relation to various criteria, including whether the proposed changes will adversely
influence living conditions in the neighborhood (criterion 116) and wt,cther thl'requested
changes are out of scale with the nccds of the neighborhood (crilerhll1 II 14), The Report .
conclude~ that these two criteria wil! be met because the placement of the buildings,
in~TCll8ed set.baek~ and enhanced vegetative buffers achieve compatibility with the
neighborhood and mitigate the scale of tile project. The facts recited;n tllis letter (which
are taken from the Report) do not support the Commission's conclu,ions and we urge the
Commission Illl\)col1s;der them,
We do not OpP<'se re~oning the Sicna site to pennit at' assisted living facility or
cOIlVcllt;onal resid('!"lces, What we do oppo~ is alll>wing the developer to u~'e 80 assisted
""
\~()<Jll"'~,21
'J " r
.:" .'-\ ( :
" ')
"
__r)
.........
--'
-""
'-",,,---, , ---
,.,--.-, --,
"
" ,
, -f,
i f...:(
'- ,',
\.,.....
'.. :
j, 'r.,
~ ""~
" '
': ..
." ,.....
" 'I_
. i'--'
v' 'i'
'. '~
, "
,I;, "'f
~ ,'. "'.:
".,-- .
." ',.
.. '.,
, i"
. . l "',
';;" i"
" : t ','(
.. .,~.
. [,"';",'
.. .,~ '.
. ~ :.,~:
. ~' >: ~
. ,""
....l'.
, "
" ,
,
..s "
. '( ,
, ,
3UL-27-09 84:21 PM CIGARDELIVERY
18682387014
living units to leverage the eOIlBtructin!l of 340 conventional residences in oversil,ed
buildings t!tat are out.of....!e and incompatible with Ihe surrounding neighborhood, The
legitimate int'-"Tcsts of the community and sound planning principles mUst not be
sacrificed to tit.. d',vclopcr's desire for maximum profits,
We reqllestthat the Commission revise its findings to re/1cct thl' faclS in its own Report,
and thar any spprc-val (lfthe Siena Lakes project be conditioned 011 a re.dcsign that will
bring the project into scale with the surrounding neighborhood, protect the site from over.
Mvelopment as required by tbe Land Development Code, and calise the PUll's Master
Plan to be in tme compliant'e with the criteria applicaolc to the requested l'e7.one,
Very truly yours,
,
/
I
'6 .
. ,
. ,/
..~., .~: .(.!:tr".;~/..,'''1 ,r'..'
.. .
.["...
Steven A. UlaLlck
I 71 R ugg Brook R'~ad
WinstcJ, ('1. 06098.2402
860.238-7014
,
,
.
,
'.
"
',..
t ")'. ~,"
,
'.
-
~,.~
......,._~._...~
(B09i1795,l\
:3
~')
~" /
"')
~-'
OF
07/27/2009 12:07 7048726310
MMHL
Agenda Item No, 8A
Dec~r "\;,2009
Page 80 or 119
-
,
CHRISTOPHER J. & KATHRYN E. MARTIN
351 SHILOH ROAD
STA.TESVILLE, NC 28677
704-872-1775
FAX 704-872-6310
FAX TO= John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
FAX NUMBER: 239-643-6968
DATE: 7/27/09
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER lETTER: 4
Foll~wing is a copy of a July 22 letter sent to you by Richard
Zelinka and Cindy Grossman regarding the Siena Lakes project.
/-..,
As property owners in Building 0, Unit 103 on Citrus Lake
Drive, we agre~ with the objections noted in this letter:
.uslng assisted living units to leverage the construction of
conventional residences
.buildings that are out-of-scale (height) and incompatible with
the surrounding neighborhood
.exceptions and deviations from 2:oning or code requirements
The requests in the final paragraph of this letter should be met
by the Collier County Planning Commission, and any future
plans proposed for building should be in compliance with the
zoning, codes and requirements for our area.
Thank you.
Chris and Kathy Martin
Pages following:
3
J
,
,
,
,
-,
- ....,_.~.~.
-
,
..-'.'-""-
..,.._-."-,- . . ,^,--...-
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 81 of 119
Richard Zelinka
Cindy Grossman
Email: rcz1@rcn.com
July 22, 2009
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive'
Naples, FL 34104
RECEIVED
JUL 2 7 2009
Re: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091}
Dear Mr, Moss:
We own unit F202 at 2711 Citrus Lake Drive and are among the property owners at
Lakeside who will be most affected by the Siena Lakes project.
As we are unable to attend the hearing scheduled for August 6, we are writing to express
our serious concerns regarding two very troubling aspects of the Siena project: the
proposal to construct a series of interconnected 5-story buildings across the width of the
site, and the absence of an effective visual barrier to screen Lakeside from these
oversized buildings,
The Siena project will contain 420 living units, Less than 20% of these will be assisted
living units. Over 80% of the units (including all those in the 5-story buildings) will be
independent living units (that is, condos or rental units), In your March 13, 2009 letter to
the developer you noted that the Siena project looks more like condos with an ALF
(assisted living facility) component than an ALF with an ILF (independent living facility)
component. We agree. It is obvious that the Siena project is primarily a conventional
condominium development with a relatively small assisted living facility component.
Accordingly, any exceptions or deviations from zoning or code requirements based on
the project being an assisted living facility should be granted with utmost caution and
limited to what is appropriate for a project with only a 20% ALF component.
As noted in the staff report (the "Report") of the Collier County Planning Commission
(the "Commission"), the maximwn height of the buildings pennitted in the surrounding
residential communities are as follows: 45 feet at Bridgewater Bay, 30 feet at Walden
Oaks and three stories at Lakeside, Therefore, the 5-story buildings proposed for Siena,
which will be 69 feet high according to the Report, will far exceed the height of any ,
building in the surrounding communities, These 5-story buildings will dominate the
landscape and be visible from many of the homes in the area, Clearly, they \\';11 be out of
scale with the existing neighborhood.
{B0911795;2)
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 82 of 119
Not only will these 5-story, buildings exceed the maximum building heights in the
adjacent communities, they will also substantially exceed the 50-foot building height
allowed in the C- 3 zoning district which, according to the Report, was used by the
planning staff as the "benchmark" to evaluate the proposed development standards for the
Siena project
We find no basis for the Report's conclusion that these excessive building heights,
significantly greater than allowed in the surrounding community and in the "benchmark"
zoning district, have been mitigated by the placement of the buildings and by the
"enhanced" vegetative buffer.
First, the developer's plan shows the five-story buildings massed in a line from east to
west across the southern portion of the Siena property. Although broken up mid-way by a
couple of lower buildings, they essentially form a wall creating a visual barrier that is not
mitigated in any meaningful way by the additional set-backs, The Siena parcel is small
and the homes in the surrounding communities are close to its boundaries; hence no
amount of additional set-back can really mitigate the visual impact of buildings that are
almost 70 feet high.
>~'"
Second, though we welcome the developer's proposal for an "enhanced" vegetative
buffer, the proposed plantings appear to be inadequate, and seem designed more to screen
the low-rise buildings at Siena from the two and three-story buildings at Lakeside than to
screen Lakeside from the five-story buildings at Siena. The developer proposes to install
trees 18 feet high and closer on center than the required 25 feet, and to provide 20% more
trees than the minimum requirement. A tree 18 feet high will do little to screen a building
that is 69 feet high (50 feet higher than the tree). Even if the tree grew to 30 feet, it would
still be almost 40 feet lower than the building roof line, Moreover, the line-of-site
elevations contained in Exhibit C-2 of the developer's CPUD document show only that
the proposed buffer would aid in screening the three-story buildings at Siena from
Lakeside, There are no elevations showing that the buffer would screen Lakeside from
the 5-story buildings, To mitigate the effects of the increased building heights at Siena,
plantings would have to reduce the visibility of the upper floors of the 5-story buildings.
Nothing is offered to show that the proposed vegetative buffer will do this.
As noted in the Report, the Commission is required to consider proposed zoning changes
in relation to various criteria, including whether the proposed changes will adversely
influence living conditions in the neighborhood (criterion #6) and whether the requested
changes are out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood (criterion # 14), The Report
concludes that these two criteria will be met because the placement of the buildings,
increased set-backs and enhanced vegetative buffers achieve compatibility with the
neighborhood and mitigate the scale of the project. The facts recited in this letter (which
are taken from the Report) do not support the Commission's conclusions and we urge the
Commission to reconsider them.
, ,
We do not oppose rezoning the Siena site to pennit an assisted living facility or
conventional residences, What we QQ oppose is allowing the developer to use 80 assisted
-
{B091179S;2}
-
,_.,.,.~._....- ,
---_.".~.,,'. ".-......~-
---"
Agenda Item No, 8A
December 1, 2009
Page 83 of 119
living units to leverage the construction of 340 conventional residences in oversized
buildings that are out-of-scale and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The
legitimate interests of the community and sound planning principles must not be
sacrificed to the developer's desire for maximum profits.
We request that the Commission revise its findings to reflect the facts in its own Report,
and that any approval of the Siena Lakes project be conditioned on a re-design that will
bring the project into scale with the surrounding neighborhood, protect the site from over-
development as required by the Land Development Code, and cause the PUD's Master
Plan to be in true compliance with the criteria applicable to the requested rezone.
Very truly yours,
Richard Zelinka
Cindy Grossman
{B09! 1795; 2}
09/09/2008 15:51
50853383166
GERALD SWANSON
Agenda IfEOO"No,1l8A
December 1, 2009
Page 84 of 119
,
--
July 27, 2009
Jobn-David Moss
Principal PlllJUler
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RE: Sienna Lakes CCRC CPUD (Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-I4(91)
Dear Mr. Moss:
This letter is to voice my opposition to the constnlctiQu of 5 story structures adjacent to
the condo property of Lakeside Gardens. 1 understand there is a 3 story limit for this area
and a variance FROM this limit is unacceptable to me.
-
Also, I understand that this property is being developed as a high density site for an
assisted living facility, while only 80 of the 420 total units will be ALF. This is also
unacceptable to me,
I hope my concerns will be strongly considered and this site will be developed in a
manner that will be blended into the adjacent neighborhoods as a positive addition.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Swanson
Lakeside GlItdens unit M-102
2875 Citrus Lake Drive
Naples, MA 34109
Cc: Bill Wagner
-
--_..._-._--~-,_.,
--,_._."
_._---"~---,- ..,--.,..,
..~---.
.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 1. 2009
Page 85 of 119
Eduardo N. Lucotti
Maria D. Lucotti
2895 Citrus Lake Drive
Naples, FL. 34109
July 27, 2009
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091)
Dear Mr. Moss:
My husband and I own Unit 0-301 at Lakeside Gardens "A" and are very
toubled concerning the Siena project: i.e. overbuilding, maximum height
restrictions, and a narrow two-way street (Orange Blossom) as the main entrance.
Attached is copy of letter from Richard Zelinka and Cindy Grossman which is self
explanatory and we are in full agreement.
Yours Truly,
I . /
E"Lc.e /1 .J ~ ut 0, ~ . :').,/1 . 0" \ L/ --r-7':'
..... V//"" Ii/>...u:(... <>kL ~ I /(
Eduardo Lucotti Maria Lucotti r. vv
.
- ,-.
:;"~-..':.o\;I,'~'_.....-.d:.....,...""..,...."" < ,_
.. "",
.. .,....... RECEIVF"
- "'--. ') -]n(l!J
,'I, Ii'<; J '.n,_,
.
Agenda Item No. 8A
December 1. 2009
Page 86 of 119
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RECEIVED
A rrr; - 3 2009
July 26, 2009
Dear John-David Moss,
I am the president of Lakeside Gardens A, Condo Association. Our association consists of 108
families living in 108 condos. More people and more condos than any other association in
Lakeside.
While all of Lakeside is affected by this new project, my owners are the most affected because
our back fence adjoins their property. It is THEIR buildings we will see day in and day out and
the out of place, taller buildings for the first time, in this area.
_.
I attended the first open forum where the Siena people had their say. We vigorously objected to
.
the height and the density, among other things, at that meeting, We still feel that no other
location anywhere near Lakeside has a height of five stories. I am an occupant at this location
for 19 years. I should know.
We are very concerned that something is being shoved down our throat. Perhaps not a
gentlemanly way of saying something, but I am truly annoyed at this point. Annoyed because
the original open meeting was held after the MAJORITY of our people left for their summer
homes, to benefit the builder. We are disturbed by the fact that the second meeting is STILL
being held when people are not totally here. Again benefiting the builder.
Then I read the changes the planning commission made and I wonder if any of us have a voice
in this project at all.
Many of our people who live here year round are against the Siena Lakes project, as presently
proposed, for the reasons stated. Others, not present, will have to voice their objections by U.S.
mail.
-,.-.";",:,,,"..:"'-"'..:.:....
"
-. ','
illiamP.
President
Lakeside, Gardens A Association
,
-
. '..------.-..
--'''-',", -'-.".",'--
--_.._----,~-,.- .
-,-._-_._--
Agenda Item No. 8A
D<Pageli3oJf22009
Page 87 of 119
MossJohndavid
____w_ .___.___ _,
...___,_~,___w_~., ._R____W_.__w~__
--~-
From: Leo Milotte [Ieomilotte@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 20091:57 PM
To: MossJohndavid
Subject: SIENA LAKES CCRC CPUD Correction Letter
To: John David Moss, Principal Planner, Community Development & Environmental Division
From: J. Leo & Ellen M. Milotte
3039 Horizon Ln #2107
Naples, F. 34109
We, the above, object to the 'as Is' project to be known as "Siena Lakes"for the following reasons.
1. The density request of .60 ratio vs. LDC AS for the county, as It is now, is unreasonable. This
request is not compatible at the state density ratio. It does not fit this land surrounded by
residential neighborhoods with a much lower ratio. The density ratio should be no more than
the AS; the request by the partltioner of .60 is too high!
2. Height'does not conform to any buildings In the area. The government buildings across Airport-
Pulling Road and the Carlisle Residence do fall within a resldenial background. The Greek church
should not have been used as a comparable. The Baptist school height is actually a 3-story
building and a decorative parapet with a mounted cross and is .05 (1/2) miles away; again, not a
good comparable.
3. The plan for a delivery road to the property on the East end of Orange Blossom we consider a
serious problem for excessive noise and traffic. A statement made by the interested party was that
there would be approximately "2 deliveries a day'--this is not practical for this size facliity serving
so many people. We have concerns about the number of deliveries, waste management and/or
hazardous medical pick-ups. We consider this to be an obstruction to our right for quiet and safety
in a residential area,
Respectfully submitted,
Leo and Ellen Milotte
7127/2009
"Ju) 30 09 02:52p
SHIPMATES
239-596-2478 Agenda Item tIe..~A
December 1, 2009
Page 88 of 119
July 30. 2009
FAX TO:
Mr. John-David Moss
Principal Planner
('..oilier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34lO4
FAX NO:
239-643-6968
Dear Mr. Moss:
This will serve as my response due by July 30, 2009 regarding Ihe Siena. Lakes ProjeeL 1 am anaching a
letter trom two Lakeside residents. who Imve done c>..1ensivc research which also reflects many or my own
opinions and lhoughts.
I am also pU7.zlcd by the dcsignal'ed deadlines which bave been imposed on the communities located close
to the project.. Many residents of Lakeside were gone during the initial meetings which left them unable
to expn:ss lhcir opinions and ask important questions.
Thank you.,
Marilyn Coales
Lakeside Gardens A Association
..
'" ".","--- .,._-~.,
,- -....______m<'._. -
....-.._-
.'_"n'_'
,
Jw130 09 02:52p
SHIPMATES
239-596-2478 ,A.genda Item ~..~
December 1. 2009
Page 89 of 119
Richard Zelinka
Cindy Grossman
Email: rcz1@rcn.com
July 21, 2009
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Colli~r County PJaruling Commission
noo NOl1h Horseshoe Drive
Naples. FL 34104
Re: Sicpa Lakes CeRe CPUD (P~tition PUD7,-2008-AR-140YIl
Dear Mr. Moss:
We O"TI unit F202 at 271 ! Cirrus Lake Drive and are anmng the property owners at
Lakeside who will be most affected by the Sicna Lakes project.
As we are unable to attend the hearing scheduled for August 6, we arc writing to express
our serious concerns regarding two very troubling aspects of the Siena project: the
proposal to construct a series of interconnected 5-story buildings across the width of the
site. and the absence of an etTective visual barrier to screen Lakeside trom these
ovcrsizc.d buildings.
The Si~na projcet will contain 420 living units. Less than 20% of these will be assisted
living units. Over 80% of1he units (including all those in the 5,story buildings) will be
independenlliving units (that is, condos or rentallmits). In your March 13, 2009 letter to
the developer you noted that the Siena project looks more like condos with an ALF
(assisted living facility) component tllan an AU with an ILF (independent living facility)
component. We agree. j( is obvious that the Siena project is primarily a conventional
condominium development with a relativ~ly small assistcd living facility component.
Accordingly, any exceptious or deviations rrom zoning or code requirements based 011
the project being an assisted living lacilit)' should be granted with utmost caution and
limitcd to wbat is appropriate for a project with only a 20% ALF component.
As noted in the staff report (the "Report") of the CoIlier COlmty Planning Commission
(the "Commission"), the maximum height of the buildings pelmilt~d in the surrounding
residential communities are as follows: 45 feet a1 Bridgewatcr Bay, 30 feet at Walden
Oaks and three stories at Lakeside. Therefore, the 5-story buildings proposed for Siena,
which will be 69 feet high according to the Report, will far exceed the height of any
building in the surrounding communities. Thes~ 5.story buildings will dominal~ the
landscape and be visible from many of the homes in the area. Clearly, they ~ilJ be oul of
scale with the existing neighborhood.
180911 79.\.2)
Jut 30 09 02:53p
.
SHIPMATE5
239-596-2478 Agenda Item ~:B'A
December 1, 2009
Page 90 of 119
Not only will these S-story, buildings exceed the maximum building heights in thc
adjacent communities, they will also subsllIntially exceed the 50-foot building height
allowed in the C-3 zoning district which, according to the Report, was used by the
planning staff as the "benchmark" to evaluate the proposed development standards for the
Siena ;>rojcct.
We find no basis for the Report's conclusion that these excessive building heights,
significantly greater than allowed in the sWTounding community and in the "benchmark"
zoning district, have been mitigated by the placement of the buildings and by t1le
"enhanced" vegetati ve bulIer.
First, the developer's plan shows the five-story buildings massed in a line from east to
west across the southern portion of the Siena property. Although broken up mid-way by a
couple. of lower buildings, they essentially fornl a wall creating a visual barrier that is not
mitigated in any meaningful way by the additional set-backs. The Siena parcel is smaIl
and the homes in the surrounding communities are close to its boundaries; hence no
amount of additional set-back can really mitigate tbe \~suaJ impac1 of buildings that are
almost 70 feet higb.
Second, though we welcome the developer's proposal for an "enhanced" vegetative
buffer, the proposed plantings appear to be inadequate, and seem designed more to screen
the low-rise buildings at Siena from the tWO and three-story buildings at Lakeside than to
screen Lakeside from the five-story buildings at Siena. The developer proposes to install
trees [8 feet high and doser on center than the required 25 feet, and to provide 20% more
trees than the minimum requirement. A tree 18 feet high will do little to screen a building
that is 69 feet high (50 feet higher than thc tree). Even jfthe tree grew to 30 feet, it would
still be almosI40 feet lowcr than the building roofline. Moreover, the [ine-ot~site
elevations contained in Exhibit C-2 oflhe developer's CPUD document show only that
the proposed buITer would aid in screening the three-story baildings at SieM from
Lakeside. There ate no elevations showing that the buffer would screen Lakesidc from
Ule 5.srory buildings. To mitigate the effects oftha increased building heights at Siena,
plamings wouid have to reduce the visibility of the upper floors of the 5,stol'Y buildings.
Nothing is offered to show that the proposed vegetative buffer will do this.
As noted in the Report, the Commission is required to consider proposcd zoning changes
in relatioll to vlU'ious criteria, including whether the proposed changes will adversely
influence Jiving conditions in the neighborhood (criterion 116) und whether the requested
chunges are ou1 of scale with the needs oftbe neighborhood (criterion #14). The Report
concludes that these two criteria will be met because the placement of the buildings,
increased set.baeks and enhanced vegetative buffers achieve compatibility with the
neighborhood and mitigate Ihe scale of the project. The facts recited in this I eneI' (which
are taken from the Report) do not support the Commission's conclusions and we urge the
Commission to reconsider them.
We do not oppose re;:;ol1ing the Siena site to pennit an assisted living facility or
conventional residences. What we f!Q opposc is allowing the developer (0 llSe 80 assisted
,'--'-
11l091179;: 2)
--'-'-._~----
-,-,---",'."..."
'''''-'--~'---'-
JuI 30 09 02:53p
SHIPMATES
239-596-2478 Agenda Item NI'HltI
December 1. 2009
Page 91 of 119
living units to leverage the construction of 340 conventional residences in oversized
buildings that lll'e out-of-scale and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The
legitimate interests of the conunullity and sound planning principles must 1I0t be
sacrit1ced to the developer's desire for maximum profits.
We request that the Commission revise its findings to rcflcct the facts in its own Report,
and that any approval of the Siena Lakes project be conditioned on a re-design that will
bring the project into scale with the surrounding neighborhood, protect the site from over-
development as required by the Land Development Code, and cause the PUD's Master
Plan to be in lmc compliance wi1h the criteria applicable to the requested rezone.
v cry truly yours,
/,'P. " .../.....-?" y.r/-' /;;~
/'" I ' c..........(.- ~;;;r /:/ .d!-.-""' ../" \""-;''7 /'{
~ . i.-~ ,/ 1...__
Richard Zelinka Cindy Grossman
.........,
iU0911795;21
Aug 05 09 10:30a
Agenda lIerll No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 92 of 119
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091
Date: August 4, 2009
Dear Me, Moss;
-~'-
My wife and I are owners of Lakeside Unit B-103 2571 Citrus Lake Drive Naples. We have been
owners of this unit since 1989. We watched the development of the whole area progress very
nicely. We were impressed with the planning of the Collier government in protecting
established neighborhoods. But in reference to the above application' have to express my
displeasure and concern over the proposed height of the buildings, 5 stories. Nothing in our
area is over 3 stories, The approval of a structure of that neight would be completely out of the
norm for our area and be detrimental to the property values of our complex whicn abuts the
proposed 60 plus foot nigh buildings. Nothing in our area including the beautifully developed
Ritzz-Carlton Golf community approaches this height.
I would ask that you reject this proposal and send it back for redesign to something more
conforming to the present scale of the neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration and concern.
Sinc~e"r' .
h
CUw-.,I\-
Ann Santogatta
239-566-8189 (home)
203-910-2369 (cell)
-----
.--.--
... , -.- .,-.,..
- ___L - -, . ..___...
-..-----.-
.
,
.
Mr. .9 Mrs. c.VIOl:::lCejOVlII\-SOII\-
89 Hamilton Avenue
Watertown Ct 06795
860.275.6995
917.488.7405
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 93 of 119
4-Aug-09
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (Petition) PUDZ-2008-AR-14091
Dear Mr. Moss,
We own unit B-102 on Citrus Lake Drive.
We are unable to attend the scheduled meeting of August 6 and we have very
serious objections to the planning of this project as proposed.
-.....,
Our most serious objection is the planned height of this community of
interconnected buildings each one being of 5 stories.
This five story building height exceeds all maximum building heights in the
surrounding community; will most certainly surpass the C-3 Zoning benchmark of
50 ft; and to be blunt in laymen's terms, will be totally out of character within the
surrounding community.
The justification that the height of these buildings will be mitigated by a couple
of lower buildings placed midway between the 5 story building residences is
insufficient to counteract this affront in zoning.
Also, we find no plausibility in the staff report ("The Report") of the Collier County
Planning Commission that the excessive heights of these buildings will be
mitigated by the placement of the buildings as noted above and by "enhanced
vegetative buffer".
Buildings that are obviously higher than all other surrounding buildings in the
community are in fact, higher, than all other buildings regardless of a midpoint
separation by lower height buildings! Nothing can change this reality.
And the proposed screening of these excessively tall buildings from the Lakeside
community is destined to be ineffectual. Our understanding is that trees 18 ft in
height are proposed. Even if these trees double in height, they can not come
close to screening out buildings that will ultimate!y be 50-70 ft. tall. And it is also
our understanding of the plans that this screening is improperly placed be it in the
area of the lower height buildings and not the 5 story buildings. What specific
buffer is going to screen the 5 story buildings?
~~. ,'".:..>-.<.
Please recognize that we do not oppose the re-zoning of the area for a
combination assisted living/residential community.
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
But we strongly object to one that does not fit into the existing environment of'ths 94 of 119
community and that will adversely affect the living conditions of the community.
· Towering buildings 50- 70 ft high do not have a fit with in our community.
They change the character and landscape of the area entirery too much.
· They adversely affect the living conditions of the community by
overpopulating what is actually a small geographical area.
· And they are blight unto the Lakeside community in what will be a visual
blockade right in our back yard limiting the horizon; reducing exposure to
sunlight and; reducing proper vegetation for both ecological and aesthetic
purposes.
My husband and I will both be in Naples at the end of August and we would like
to meet in person with any committee/persons if necessary to help get this
project on the right road.
We are very disappointed in the report as submitted by the Commission. We
have always been so impressed by the quality and care taken in the
development of Naples' properties through out the 20 years we have been
visiting and living in Naples and to where we will shortly retire.
We strongly urge the Commission to re-vise its findings and for any
continuums of this project to be conditioned upon a revised desig!1 that
will conform in scale to the surrounding community.
Regards,
Choyce and Cheryl Johnson
_. "",i..'.~1 ',,',"';"_ _.
i;" ',,_,_' '.,t_",-". 't,....:-:..~.~.,. " _
'" -.
''-''',.,' ",',.,'.0.-
-'-'
.. ___""'~'M~___'_
--"--_....',
-'-"~,,---,.,--- -
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 95 of 119
Marie & Antonio Petitti
34 Westfield Drive
Trumbull, CT. 06611
Tonpetitti@aol.com
203-261-7720
August 5, 2009
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier COWlty Planning Commission
2800 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FI. 34104
Dear Mr. Moss;
We own unit B -101 at Lakeside Condos on Citrus Lake Drive.
We are unable (0 attend the meeting of August 611I but we do have veiy seriOlls objections (0 the
planning of the project proposed for Sif:na Lakes!!
We have owned our condo for almost 20 years and most of the changes we have Sef:U in Naples
have been for the positive such a5 the opening of Livingston Road, the new Naple5 Library and
the planting of all the trees on Airport Road and the surroWlding streets. But We are VERY
OPPOSED to the number of buildings and the height of the buildings proposed for the small
Siena Lakes land. This project will lower the value of all the surroWlding condos, Also how in
this economy can this builder sell over 300 condo units? (only 80 units will be assisted living)
Will this project end up being similar to the project that was featured in USA Today newspaper
last week with " buildings almost totally empty after several years of trying to ~ell its condos. .
We strongly urge the Collier County Commission to NOT consider the proposed zoning changes
to allow the building of these 5 story towers in our neighborhood since it will adversely influence
living conditions. The proposed vegetative buffers do not block the height of the proposed
buildings. The project needs to be scaled down to fit in with the surrounding condos.
We will be in Naples in :2 weeks and would like to meet in person with any committee/persons to
help make this project a favorable project for the surrounding condos. We are both Trumbull
Town Committee Members and serve on 2 local boards.
At this time we strongly urge the Plannillg Commission to re-vise Us findings and to revise the
Siena Lakes design to conform to the scale of the su"oUllding community.
Thank You for your time
MBrie and Antonio Pe .
.
{lW
I'~
i0-d
Wd 9~:90 6e0~-ga-~n~
FW: Siena Lakes
Agendli~ NBfElA
December 1 , 2009
Page 96 of 119
MossJohndavid
-
.----.-.----.-.---.-.--.-...--..----.....-." """""'..,,.' _...,."-"-,....._.._._--"..."..._,."._..,.._._._--,.....~'..-------...----.".-.-...---...--..----
From: Mary Ann Costello [costelloma@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 20094:37 PM
To: MossJohndavid
Cc: etcostello@gmail.com; 'Mary Florence Mllle~
Subject: RE: Siena Lakes
Thanks for sending this John,
My husband and I object to the approval of this project for several reasons:
1) The placement of the service road - next to Bridgewater Bay - will cause noise and distract from the
peacefulness of our community. It could be placed on the western end of the property and not hinder
anyone.
2) The density of the proposed population - Looks like a condo project (340 units) to us with a small
assisted living component (80 units).
3) The height of the proposed building structures. A five story bUilding is NOT consistent with the
surrounding neighborhoods and would adversely affect the value of the properties adjacent to this
proposed development.
4) In the document (which I have read cover to cover) "you" touch lightly on whether or not this will affect
the land values of surrounding neighborhoods. In fact the wording is really sad and underwhelming.
Was it possible for you to get professional opinions from banks and real estate people to assess this
potential disaster to the neighborhood? There is no way that is cannot effect us adversely.
We will attend the meeting tomorrow and voice our concerns louder.
By the way I don't understand how a requirement for 5 feet wide sidewalks on both sides of the street can be
replaced with one 6 foot sidewalk on one side of the street and still be called equal. Seems like 10 feet width
will allow the passage of more foot traffic than 6 foot width. Not exactly sure how you all decided that one.
Respectfully submitted
Mary Ann and E. Thomas Costello
3244 Sundance Circle
Bridgewater Bay
Naples, FL 34109
.--....--.----,.,..--.-".----."".-.......-......-. ---' ..," ... "'--"-,
From: MossJohndavid [mailto:JohndavidMoss@colliergov.netj
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:36 PM
To: costelloma@gmail.com
Subject: FIN: Siena Lakes
From: MossJohndavid ",' _ _. _..,
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:02 AM
To: 'EPCantor@aol.com'i 'Andrew Dickman'; 'Leo Mnotte'; 'shirley lindenbaum'i 'Ruthi Zenk'
Cc: 'parepantry@comcast.net'
Subject: SIena lakes
-,'. ....".-
_.
<<siena lakes report.pdf>>
8/5/2009
" ---.--.-.--
-...---.-..
.._--,
-_._-._.~..._...-
....
<
Agend!?lIWiln1i'Qf SA
December 1, 2009
Page 97 of 119
MossJohndavid
---- . '._'__~"__""_.__'___""_______'____"_'_'."__..m'_'_ _" ____.~,._.~..._..., ,.. _ _ _ ,..._._.m..._____.."..___.".._......_~__~_.__.._.__"...__".""_.....",.._._..._"'_.,.___.~.._.."_.....__
From: Garry Parrish [GARRYPARRISH@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11 :49 PM
To: MossJohndavid
Cc: garryparrish@msn.com
Subject: Petition PUDA-2008-AR-14090,etc.
This is in response to your letter of 17 Jul 2009 relating to subject petition. I was recently told
the proposed development would have buildings over tnree stories high. This Is unacceptable! I
own property right next door in Bridgewater Bay (very next building to East). The proposed
commercial development must be no taller than the residential condos next door (TWO FLOORS).
You must NOT consider churches in the area as commercial enterprises as they are NOT, and
churches have very tall ceilings as a matter of course/design/etc, since they hold
hundreds/thousands of people! A nursing home is fine (a commercial enterprise to make a
profit), however, the height and design must be same as structures nearby. The' more people in
such a facility also increases traffic/noise, etc. Thanks for your consideration. Garry Parrish.
8/10/2009
.
.
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
HEGt,\\I\:D Page 9S of 119
-
Gasper Messana
Maryann Leuci
~ . '~i\~n~)
f'>~'''""' -',' ~.~ t.,lo5l/."
:,>, ~,' i''/
.,}t,~,
,
5 Roberl St.
HicksviIle, NY 11801
2671 Citrus Lake Dr.
Building E Unit 303
Naples, Florida, 34109
-
Dear Commissioners:
I own a unit at Lakeside, which is adjacent to the proposed Siena Lakes project.
,
I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to the Siena project as currently
planned because the height and density are completely out of scale with our
neighborhood, The long row of 5 story buildings will be visible from much of
Lakeside. They will dominate the skyline. There are no buildings this high anywhere
in the area.
..'-
We value the character of our neighborhood. It is one reason we bought a home here.
The proposed 5 story buildings will fundamentally change the character of the area.
Please do not give final approval to the Siena project unless the building heights are
reduced so that they are in scale with the neighborhood.
Thank you.
~Vl
-
~ Signature
i\...
,
Signature
C It t;j7 E /Z /'1/3. I} S' /-1 IV /I Printed Name
M RAV/'I/lIN J..c:uc./ Printed Name
.
J-. Cc 7 J {!;t I? tJ-5 iRA-if" D,(', Lakeside Address
t3u,ld/r,q C( UN/I- 303
."-~
,--..--
-...'.-
,.,.",-,.~-,--"._-,
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 99 of 119
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Dear Mr. Moss:
This is In regards to the Siena Lakes Project. I am an owner of a condo at Lakeside
since 2005. I am fairly new to Florida. I have chosen Naples to buy a condo because it
looks and feels different than other areas of Florida. I am sure in your oversight of
planning you do consider the heart and soul of what makes each of the neighborhoods
in Naples unique.
I oppose buildings above the tree line in this area of North Naples. The county Library
is a showpiece for city planning. Higher buildings will obscure the beauty here and the
skyline. Naples skylina is palm trees and blue skies. If I wanted taller buildings to look
at I would have bought In cheaper areas like Sarasota. I drove to Sarasota to visit thier
beaches. There were so many buildings I did not even continue down the road to the
turn to the beach. After a few miles I turned back to 175 and headed back to Naples to
enjoy our beaches and city, North Naples is the nicest community in Collier County and
it stands out looking at Lee County as well. We need your expertise in capturing what
that means and protecting what makes this place special. I am thankful for others who
have let me know about this project. Sometimes you do not know what you value until it
is gone. I hope putting my thoughts in writing help you and the planning commission
consider what we value.
In summary, please do not allow buildings more than 3 floors. Taller buildings can be
built in other parts of the town that already have this type of building.
Sincerely,
Darlene Hernandez
2885 Citrus Lake Dr. 30SN
Naples, FI 34109
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 100 of 119
--
FIRST
BAPTIST
CHURCH
NAPLES
copy
Dr. Hayes Wicker, Senior Pastor
September 22, 2009
Mr. Frank Halas
Commissioner District 2
Board of County Commissioners
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
Dear Mr. Halas:
-
On behalf of First Baptist Church Naples, I want you and the Planning Commission to
know how delighted we are to learn about the Siena Lakes Project. Our executive staff
have formerly met with Mr. Steve Nornes as he shared his master plan for the
development. We are in full agreement with his vision and purpose to serve the needs
of our senior community.
We have confidence in Mr. Nornes' determination to make this an icon for other
developments such as this to pursue. The proposed location between two major road
systems will provide ease for ingress and egress. This development has the potential to
serve thousands of seniors as they enjoy a lifestyle of comfort, security, and enjoyment.
Thank you for your assistance in making Siena Lakes a reality in our community. We, at
First Baptist Church Naples, affirm our support for this outstanding project.
In His service,
:PI!:
;)j
Doug Pigg
Associate Pastor of Church Administration
cc: John-David Moss, Collier County Principal Planner V
Steve Nornes, Siena Lakes Project Development Manager
RECEIVED
SEP 3 0 ~009
-
ZONING DEPARTMENT
3000 OIMge Blossom Drive Naples, FL 341 09-89t9 PHON" 239.597.6057 rAX: 239.597.1678 WEB: www.tbcn.org
- .,..---~_.~~._." .-
"-_._"-..-
",.'.-'-
- , ---,'^
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 101 of 119
ORDINANCE NO. 09
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE
ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD), OAK GROVE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING
DISTRICTS TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW A
CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY FOR A
PROJECT KNOWN AS THE SIENA LAKES CCRC CPUD,
LOCATED IN SECTION I, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF
29.25", ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Robert Duane, AICP of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich, Esq. of
Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, PA, representing LCS-Westminster Naples LLC petitioned
the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described
real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section I,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Orange
Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD), Oak Grove Planned Unit Development
(PUD) and Agricultural (A) Zoning Districts, to a Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) known as the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through F,
attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091
REV. 11/3/09
Page 1 of2
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 102 of 119
zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this
day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
, Deputy Clerk
-,
Approved as to form and legal
sufficiency:
'>~'\
r .,,0
\'"1
\
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Section Chief, Land UselTransportation
Attachments:
Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses
Exhibit B - Development Standards
Exhibit C-I - Master Plan
Exhibit C-2 - Line of Sight
Exhibit C-3 - Landscape Buffer Elevations
Exhibit C-4 ~ Cross Sections and Details
Exhibit C-5 - Site Amenities
Exhibit D - Legal Description
Exhibit E - List of Requested Deviations
Exhibit F - List of Developer Commitments
CPI08-CPS-00919133
-
PUDZ-2008- AR-14091
REV. 11/3/09
Page 2 of2
-,.._~_.
, .-
'-
--~~'--
-.... ...._._--,-~~.. ---.
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 103 of 119
LIST OF PERMITTED USES
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD
PERMITTED USES
A maximum of 764,478 square feet shall be permitted. No building or structure, or part thereof,
shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
Residential uses for persons aged 62 and over shall be permitted consisting of 340
independent living units and an assisted living facility comprised of 20 assisted living
beds, 45 skilled nursing beds and IS memory (dementia) care beds.
A minimum of 72,000 square feet of various associated amenities shall be provided so
residents may age in place, Personal support services shall also be provided to the
independent living residents.
Density shall be permitted at a combined maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60.
A. Principal Uses:
1. Independent living units (fLU). Units such as houses, duplexes, town houses or
apartment residences for residents who do not require special medical assistance;
however, the same services offered to the dependent population shall be made
available if they choose to use them.
2. Assisted living units (ALU). Assisted living is a long-term residence that provides
care in a residential setting. It is designed for those who need help in their day-to-day
lives but who do not require 24-hour skilled nursing care.
3. Alzheimer Special Care or Memory Care Units (SCU). SCUs are usually a floor or
units inside of a much larger ALU to meet the special needs of residents with
dementia.
4. Skilled Nursing units Facility (SNF). A residence that provides a room, meals, and
help with activities of daily living and recreation. Residents would generally have
physical or mental problems that keep them from living on their own and, therefore,
usually require daily assistance.
5. Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with the purpose and intent of the
district as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the LDC.
November 3. 2009
)r-'
B.
Indoor Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities:
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 104 of 119
1. The following uses shall comprise a minimum of 10.75% of the total floor area of the
project (approximately 72,257 square feet):
Maintenance Building;
Lobby;
Administrative Offices;
Housekeeping;
Public Restrooms;
Coat Room;
Main Dining Room;
Cocktail Lounge;
Private Dining;
Central Kitchen;
Bank
,
Postal Outlet;
Library;
Game/Card Rooms;
Business Center;
Billiards Room;
Arts Studio;
. Beauty/Barber Shop;
Resident Social Director's Office;
Receiving Room;
Nurse Practitioner's Office;
Woodworking Studio;
Convenience Store;
Coffee Shop;
Ice Cream Parlor;
Auditorium;
Exercise Studio;
Physical Therapy;
Physician Office;
Locker Room and Showers;
Swimming Pool (enclosed);
Aerobics/Group Fitness Room;
Resource Center/Classroom;
Massage/Spa Therapy;
Beauty Salon (AL& SNF);
Exercise Physiologist Office;
Resident Services Director's Office;
Resident Services Staff's Office.
C.
Outdoor Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities:
_.--,
I. Parking facilities; covered loading dock; guard house; outdoor recreational facilities
such as swimming pool and deck and similar facility; walking trails; signs and water
management facilities; hardscape, seating, trellis and decks; lawn games - croquet,
badminton and lawn bowling; deck and trelIis; putting greens; courtyard, garden and
landscaping; swimming pool and deck.
No~3.2009
.il<"
-'----.-- "..,
~.....-. '-.-'
---'-.....,.,<<~>~_..~-~..., ---
n, ^_"
-'
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 105 of 119
D. Miscellaneous Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities:
I. Any other accessory and related use that is determined to be comparable in nature
with the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined
in the LDC.
NOvember 3,2009
,/
",Ii<
.-
...."..
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 106 of 119
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD
Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Siena Lakes CCRC
CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections
of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE DISTRICT
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA N/A N/A
MIMINUM FLOOR AREA:
ALU' 609 sq. ft. N/A
SNF 305 sq. ft. N/A
!LU 830 sq. ft. N/A
MINIMUM SETBACKS
3- and 4-story structures
From south property line I 00 feet 6~ feet
From west property line 60 feet 454G feet
From east property line 90 feet 25 feet
From north property line 80 feet 25 feet
All other structures 25 feet 25 feet
INTERNAL DRNE 10 feet o feet
SETBACKS (from ed e of pavement)
LAKE SETBACKS 20 feet (except where adjacent to 20 feet
hoardwalk)
MIMINUM DISTANCE 35 feet N/A
BETWEEN STRUCTURES
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
ALU (2 stories). 42 feet ZH and 45 feet AH
SNF (2 stories) 42 feet ZH and 45 feet AH 30 feet ZH
!L U (3 story) 41.5 feet ZH and 48 feet AH 35 feet AH
ILU (4 story) 53liG feet ZH and 6069 feet AH
ILU (5 story, incl. parking) 53liG feet ZH and 6069 feet AH
Commons (2 sto 42 feet ZH and 45 feet AH
'ALU-Assisted Living Units (which includes Memory Care Units)
SNF-Skilled Nursing Facility
ILU-Independent Living Units
ZH = ZONED HEIGHT
AH ~ ACTUAL HEIGHT
II. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
1. To provide an enhanced buffer, trees shall be installed at less than 25 feet on center (Oe) to
allow for clustering to provide a more effective buffer.
2. The quantity of trees proposed shall be an additional 20% over what is required.
C:\Documents and Settings\tammyalthouse\Local Settings\Tc:mporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\5XWW2LQH\lO_ 29 EXHIBIT BM
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS rev091020.doc
0l~
----.---_._...-
, " "_..,,
m_.^._~._. _;______
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 107 of 119
3. Tree heights shall exceed the required 10-foot overall height (OAH) minimum. Canopy trees
shall be at 16-18 feet OAH and Slash Pines 14-18 feet OAH. Cabbage Palms shall exceed the
required 10-foot clear trunk (CT) minimum by specifying 15-20 feet CT with an additional
10 feet of crown,
4. Plantings shall occur on both sides of the required buffer walls with the additional plantings
being installed on the residential side of the walls. Ultimately, this will create a staggered
"green wall" to effectively screen the buildings.
The type D buffer along the western property line shall meet LDC requirements. The following
standards have been added to each buffer along the north, east, south and west property lines (see
also Exhibits C-2 and C-3 for further details):
NORTH PROPERTY LINE
15-foot wide Type B buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25 feet OC and a single row hedge
of 10 gallon material, at a minimum of 5 feet in height (HT) with a 3-foot spread, placed a
maximum of 4 feet OC.
+ 1672 linear feet (LF) = 67 Trees, 418 Shrubs required
81 Trees, >418 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing
EAST PROPERTY LINE
15-foot wide Type B Buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25'OC and a single row hedge of
10 gallon material, at a minimum of 5 feet HT with a 3' spread, placed a maximum of 4' OC.
+728 LF = 30 Trees, 187 Shrubs required
36 Trees, > 187 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE (Enhanced Type B buffer to be installed vs. the required Type D
buffer, for improved screening)
15-foot wide Type B buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25 feet OC and a single row hedge
of 10 gallon material, at a minimum of 5 feet HT with a 3-foot spread, placed a maximum of 4
feet OC.
i1677 LF = 67 Trees, 420 Shrubs required
81 Trees, ;:::420 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing
WEST PROPERTY LINE
15-foot wide Type B Buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25'OC and a single row hedge of
10 gallon material, at a minimum of 5 feet HT with a 3' spread, placed a maximum of 4' OC.
i721 LF = 30 Trees, 187 Shrubs required
36 Trees, > 187 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing
C:\Documents and Settings\tammyalthouse\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\5XWW2LQH\IO_ 29 EXHIBIT B-
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "v091020.doc
,/t.V
/
,
I
.
,
=~"'_~.."'C:
~,:;,.=.: ~..-.-~----
-~. --.
.-- --.
-..- ________ _h.
------ -'~' --....... ------.
------ ---.
-----.._- -~---
--
'- -~-
"',
"
-~,'
-
,
'-.
,~--_.
--
-"--
q,
"""
...,.
(Tl'PkaIl
--t'"
,- .,'
, ,--
\ \ ~-,
C='.
I'~--
,
,
-,
-' ,-'
, ,
\, .------,
"I"~~.!I"','--' ,-'
L_ .-....._ '~. ,
,_.-__ I ,
,'--~-'" ---,-
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,"
,
--
...-
--
,_......,
-.......-..
, ...
J,I'\N\j,l..
...~-_.-
-..-.
--
----
'-"" --
---.
--
......._.,..
..---_.
--
.'"~--
..---.
,--
...~--
--
-
,..-,......,
--
--
0...__...._
------
.."\.--.,.
B-"_
).......-
~ ........-
.
i
...<1>
--
..:rm.."\ilJ.ii
--...--
....-.-
-,
---
--
'_'JLIl)
--
- ..-
-.., ...-
.....-.......
.
--'
---
._---...._~.~-......;-..;...;;:;-:;-;...~...
/
"
/'
________m.._.
----~--~-
-.-.--...
-
.
--
- _.
__ U..
-~ ,..-....
,------,
-,~ I..
,-'......_--,
-
--
~lOPMEI<ITNO'TU..,STN<DNlDS
--
I_._f
---.-
+
-~---
<l>
--
---------
-------------
~~~
-----------
...
. ""--..-...--.-
. ",.-----.,.-...-
--.......--...-.....-
--"'~--_-..-
-_....- ....-......... -
--......--..--
~...._'"'""_.-
----~......
1__1
......--.
.....--
~-
.... -.-.-
-, ...--.........-
-.
~
..--
.-.....-..........., ........---
"",-,,-.--,
""..--..-.....,-- -..---
...,...........".....,........,..................."'..
........,."'.......
."""'_~....___<OI............_""_......~_
'-_.._........,.ocaoo___....___
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
,...._--,-,.....
----..-
. -""""_..._---
--
. """_OJ""".""""
,.. -"......
..----
..-=--
.._~.....
-,
~ Sa' OO\IBrrs C-~ NtlIC..1 FOIl
\ANDIIW\PEllUFFERN(TIUANt)
~-"""
.
. -
-
-
-Ii>
-q,
=
". ._-
-
-.
1lll1SC.P.U.lIMAllTV1l'LAN1II
~OM.'/OH)ISBUILIEC1"
lOlollNOllllES_lolOOIFlCAlIONIi.
-
---
....--...,....__c..:II
--__c.II
......."-"-".-....
~
-.-
"",,",,"...
---
-
-
-
-
S'ENA LAKES
-
HMI
-""""'"
- --
--~
_R...,.
---
--.
... ....'m
P.U.D. MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT C.1
_...-......-<~......,
o;:......-==-. -.. -...
---
"",.,,,
~~,
--
--
'.
-
2007.11~
'd
.W'^,
"_.~"~.'
-_.....~'"-
.n._'
-- - HIVI --- --...- -- --
---
...----- - -- - _R....,.. LINE OF SIGHT --- ""'-,
----,- - ~iena Lakea CCIW _,l2JIl__
---- - -- - ~~ --. EXHIBIT C-2 -- --
----- - - -- . -.- _",m 2007.1\5 , . ,
- - '. -.
I -".-,:.
. -
--
. .........
I -
I
,
.
.
\
-
- -..
. -
--
......-
__n_ _
.'.
-
.
-
---...
. -
--
--
,
,
, ,
_n__.._.__r__'._n.u
, ,
,
,
, ,
----------___r..~____~_~~_____
" -
" .~
" -
I ,~.....
_____________L__~_____________
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
...
-.
,
, ,
-----~~~--~--t---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
_____nn_.~~~--
" -
"._
, ,
" ,--
__________i__~_~____~__
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
,~
-
.-
-
'"'
'"'
.
--
-
--
.-...-..-....-.----.-----
_..0.........___-....___
--.....-.....----.-.-...---
___........_."'A_......_..
_........._..10.0.
-.
--
..-...-,.."'--..------..-"'--..--
-_..._--------_.....~.._......,..__..
..."'......-....-........--..--......-..-..--
----.....--..--...-.--------.....
------------------ .......--
-...--..--------..."" .--......-......--
___... ___'10_.__ -....___
--...--------..------..--
_T..,.________..._-.-
I
,
I
,
IllUSTRATED EAST ELEVATION 1-1
: I'. to'
--~~ ...
--
----
-------
-.-
...........--.......
...--
..-....
.
_._0-
-.
........_--
....--
-
"r
,"0:, 'f',
"'-,' -"'-
~-' '.::
:-~- -----~
. - ,
<===4-.~:
1It--,,-- .
U\',
--
--
-'~~ ,~
......-......-.......---...."'-"'.. -..- -~.
-.,--....----...--- -
-r-- ._-- ~..- ~-.....
---
---- .~~--
------ .~ -
'-.
--~ ~"--
--- ~ -.
~. ~~
~..- ------ ~.....
-1 , 1"-
, I '
, --'
, '-'
~_________L___________L_______
. ...",~.~.o..
IUUSTRATED NORTH
SCA.I..E;,'a10'
ELEVATION 2-2
-.
.--
o
-
--.
-j
,,'
--
L ~..--'
\--- ..-
-----~""- .,'
- --J-' -
n":':
----
'.
~.,.. ".
"h",."~
';,::~:-",,-
>, ;;<_,.-c
V .
-.
~-
-.-
...."...--........
.---
...."....--
....--
ILLUSTRATED SOUTH ELEVATION 3-3
-.....----.......----"'-....
-"'...-....-....-...----
--- .----
rn
SC/lLE:1''''lT
f-~!.>'~__
rn
.
--
--
...-cNO__...,o~
- .
-'"l
.
'~7"---:j
.,~~~-........
, ..'~
....."'.--
.--
-...-......--....---
,..."'-.....-.,......---
...",. '''''''.:E:--
--
-.-
rn
.,.,..
~', ' ',"l,
~". 'V~ _
~--"'"'.._- ~-=--':'f:::: ..--..-~- ~'~~~~~
--= -~ - / ~~~ ~~-
-~~ ____-:;t.i- _...... -1"_
-~iL -..,_.- :
__.u~_I!l...-et..._ ~_' __~_ __J
.--
~
--~-
--
j
,
rn
-
>-
I
I
,
J
!
I
.
,
.
j
,
,
,
.
i
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
!
!
,
.
~.
-
-. -~
, -
--
--
-----
,..
....~
-
_. ...
, -
--
.........
-
,.'
-
~ -CO'
, -
.--
--
~
-..----
-----
---
-..-.....-
-
-.
.........-.....--------
-.....------..---
--.....-...,.....-------
- --............"'.-...."'......
-..-.-.......
--
--
..-...-.............,......-------......-............--..
---------.----..-....."'"'--...
,..."'.......--...""------.............."'-..-.........-
-----....--.,...---..----"""-.....
---------.... .,.-----......- .....--
""""'.......-......-..--.-.----"'......... --............ ..--
___.- , _-"'TO_.__ -.'''___
-..-...----...-----..------..-
-."'...---.----.......-...-
I
I
I
,
,
ILLUSTRATED EAST ELEVATION 1-1
lICAI.E,l""111'
-_..!...'!.""l!@tr..~__
,-
-,
-..........
,
, ,
----------1--f---------
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
----------.--.----------
" -
I , ...-
, ,
I I ,__
__~_______L__~_______~_
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
-.-
....."'...--.......,.
."--
..-"....----
....--
--
--
-.-
--
---
.-
--
,~-,~
-...-..----"".....---......"'....."'. .- ~~
-.,...-,..-,....------- ~~~' ~'.....
,<",~"v- -----.... ...~---, ,,~ ~~,
,,,':.~.,~, <', (---- ~,~.... ~
;.:,.._.. C";::" --___,_.. _..-- _......
'"- - /- ~-~ ~-~ -...
,-----.....:....-_~.:..~' ---;;...c.. ~~~
- ------I ..~~ ,,~ I ~~
"--- '.---'---'- ~~ I '.
~~., ==f."::i -(~ 1,------- ~~T-
". ,,,-- l3. I _...... I
-- ......!.l__~- I l-'
-~-_____..Q~.._~_ _ ~.~..J...________ ________1.____
-......-
-
ILLUSTRATED NORTH ELEVATION 2~2
SCALE:l'_11l'
-
,.-
-
'"lW'1
-
LVJ
---
--------------------------------
-'~",
'.i__~<.'''"
"~~;-_'-":~;,.
....~~~.
.-
.>
'1~~'
,
,
,
,------.
r-------l
, ,
6
--
~
6
6
-.
--
.........--.
...."'."'-_........
........-
...."'....--
----
,."...._........_..,~-.._-_...-.."'-"'.
-"'....---....-..............-,..
---- ,---
ILLUSTRATED SOUTH ELEVATION 3-3
SCALE:""'D'
,
CD
,
,
, ,
, ,
--------------r--T-------------
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
--------------~--+-------------
"-
, I .......
, I __
, I ___
--------------~--~-------------
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
/,
~" ~~~
~~~......
',.
,
,
,
--,
t-~...__
-~ ..
---
--
--
'-.
"";"':;j-'--=..:::j -----=-t~l
-~--
.. ~ "~p-
........... ...._.~ ,,"', ..; /~
... - -~J::--'"~~J
....."'.... - '_!'Or "'-- _"<a.
....- '--.!':~::.-.. "....
-i- -- ,- -,'
- - ~>
......._........_... ___......"'_to. --._~ >-~
_"''''__.:=.:''__'''___0.00 ..._--~,
-- __J... --- -, -\!
----..t ------- ---.-..~~.~~_J!!!...."....___~;;;.!::!__----------
~- ._~
CD
-
CD
.--
CD
--
-
--
----.-
LANDSCAPE BUFFER ELEVATIONS
EXtlBIT C~3
-
-
-
-
-
HM
- ......
- --
--...
_""-""110
-...-
.-.......
"" ....'172
.siena Lakea CCUC
,
--
'.
.
.
-..
--,..--.......
I
.
I
I
.
I
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
!
I
.
.--
--
".
~
-
--
--
,--
_."."
-
--
SEC'l!ON C-C
~''''
-
---
---.-#
-...".....
---
-
-
,--
--
_....,,--
.".....-
-
'....~...-~_._,
........,_...._"u..,'...._
"--".-
_.._.......~_...."-
........-............--..--
...........-....""'-.--
........-......-__.....'Iba
----
---
...
--........
-...-"....
"",."..
,-
___UH
------
"'.-.,..->
"",om,
---
"",.,..
--
,-,
_-:::1
-
---l
..... .
'L::-
.
w:...,..
---
"........
...---
,-,
-
.........
SEClION D-O
.t.'
-.
-
-.
.
--.-
.-
,-,
-
("-_l
-
_v_._...".
_.-
--
-
--
-,.
"-"-"."
---
OLt.....
~--
,.-...,
_...
'L::-
,
---
.......
.-...--.
"".,...
s(CT1~ J,.-A
..
.xclJQ!i.~
."
8lienn Lnk~ CC12C
-
1
-
j
11M
---
-
--'l
,
-::: -~jJ;.T
1-1--:-
, -
,
,
I -
I
-
---
-
--
'-
--
..n.'..._
=lJ
-
--~
_......,..
---
--.
.... ....,m
~
-
--
--
'''''''''
.........
SECTlON.....I::Il
..
-.-
.-
,-,
--
-
......"..
SEC'n~
....
I
I
I
,
1
-- r
--
--
-
-
--
......H'..
",-
---
-
.
--
---
---
-
"
r
.-
-
,.---
.
.-
-
-
--
-.
."....,'"
. _ _~J -....
.......,....".- _7~~,."
""
H
.
-......-,,-.......
:=.""="..:=... -.. -..
---
CROSS SECTIONS and DETAILS
EXHIBIT C.4
~-"O
~~.
--
--
2007."5
..,
-
Key Map of Site Amenities.
-
@ Villas ~ Trellis Area
-
--...-..-.--
..-...---
-
.
.-
-.
..
..
lJiella Lake. CCIlC
---~.-
CD Central Lake and Commons Area
'~~x:-.;t.:,:, ,',
;;pr .,..',
~n'."
-
@ Walklna Paths, Puttina Greens and
Trellis S9atin~ Area
11M
--........
- ---
111I..--......
_fL""'"
_'~IIl_
--.
~, ....."t
..?
,-_._-^-
...,,-....,,~,
-0;."--'
I
I
1
I
@ Wallness Center and Commons Area
@ Entry Landscaping
SITE AMENITIES
EXHIBIT c-@6
~..- --
=-- 7'11!iJ:\!!
--
-
2007.11!i
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 113 of 119
.
Exhibit 0
SIENA LAKES
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
TIlE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND
THE BAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOll1HWEST QUARTER OF SECTION I, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
. COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE SOtmmRL Y 30 FEET.
,
0~
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 114 of 119
EXHIBIT E
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD
1. A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.E. 2. and 3, which requires that a wall and/or
fence be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and a maximum of eight (8) feet in height and that it
be located a minimum of six (6) feet from a residentially zoned district. This deviation is to
allow a currently existing six foot wall located on the Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens PUD
(north of the subject property) satisfY the requirement and not require the construction of an
additional wall). (See proposed CPUD Master Plan.) (Deviation No, I.)
2. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, to require a six-foot sidewalk on only one
side of the proposed internal access drives and entrance to the project as shown on the CPUD
Master Plan. (Deviation No.2.)
-
3. A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.05.N. I .a, Configuration of water management areas,
which requires the shape of a manmade body of water, including retention and detention areas, to
be designed to appear natural with curvilinear edges. See "Body of Water Shapes" Figure Y in
subsection 4.06.02 D. to allow an alternative design where the lakes are internally related to the
proposed building envelopes as shown on the Master Plan. (Deviation No.3.)
4. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, which requires a width of 60 feet for a private
roadway, to allow a private roadway width of 30 feet within an access easement along the
western edge of the property. This easement will provide two lanes for access to the Lakeside of
Naples at Citrus Gardens PUD. (Deviation No.4.)
5. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A. I, which requires sidewalks on both sides of a
local street that is adjacent to the site, to allow the 30-foot wide, two lane access drive located on
the western edge of the property to have a six foot wide combination bike path and sidewalk on
the east side of the access road. (Deviation No.5.)
6. A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02. CA, which requires that a Type D landscape
buffer of 20 feet in width be provided adjacent to any road right-of-way, to allow the required
buffer to be reduced to 15 feet along the 30-foot wide roadway access easement located along the
western property line. (Deviation No.6,)
".~--
November 3. 2009
(I>~
VI
-..'- -
.--....-.
---....,--..-
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 115 of 119
EXHIBIT F
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD
I. TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS
1. At the time of the application of the first building permit, the developer shall
provide a non-exclusive public access easement, 30 feet in width, along the west
property line and shall construct a two lane access road (as outlined in no. 6
below). There shall be no maintenance responsibility and no cost to the County.
2. Compensating right of way will be conveyed to Collier County, at no cost, in the
form of an easement as shown on the CPUD Master Plan.
3. The 40' right of way reserved to construct the additional lanes along Siena Lakes
Orange Blossom Drive frontage will be conveyed to the County in exchange for a
negotiated value of not to exceed $150,000; which excludes the value of
compensating right of way within the reservation that is required for the necessary
turn lane. Conveyance of the reserved right of way shall occur within 30 days of
issuance of the first building permit. Any additional right of way outside of the
40' required to construct turn lanes along Orange Blossom Drive frontage will be
conveyed to the County in fee simple and at no cost to the County.
4. The developer agrees to provide, at no cost to Collier County, any necessary
temporary construction easements needed to perform the following work along
Orange Blossom Drive, including but not limited to: driveway restoration, utility
connections, slope and backfill, and drainage.
5. Payment of Road Impact Fees:
a. Road impact fees will be paid once the SDP for phase one is
approved according to LDC provisions. A COA for phase one
would be issued at this time.
b. Payment of road impact fees for phase one and phase two upon the
application of first building P"llIlit. These payments would total
approximately $1,400,000. Phase one by itself is approximately
$1,000,000. Accordingly, the developer is pipelining their road
impact fees in advance of the County code requirements. Upon
payment of the road impact fees, the project will be vested, and all
November 3. 2009
(,,1./
o
',H ,..;, .,.' "
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 116 of 119
impact fees will be considered fully paid and a COA for phase two
will be issued.
c. Prior to approval of the first building permit, the developer agrees
to pay its fair share of the Airport Road/Orange Blossom Drive
improvements, not to exceed 5.3 I % of the total cost of the
intersection improvements as determined by the County's
estimated project costs.
-
6. The developer agrees to obtain a temporary construction/fill easement from the
Greek Orthodox Church, at the time of application of the first building permit. If
the easements are not obtained from the Greek Orthodox Church, the developer
shall employ alternative design and construction techniques that allow for the 30'
access drive and sidewalk to be constructed without encroaching onto church
property. The developer will dedicate and construct an ingress and egress drive to
the Lakeside development to provide access to and from Orange Blossom Drive.
The developer shall not be responsible to construct or maintain gates that would
control access to the Lakeside PUD. The ingress and egress drive will be 24 feet
wide along with a six foot wide sidewalk on the east side of the roadway in
accordance with Exhibit E deviations and commitment I above. Prior to
application for the first Certificate of Occupancy, the developer agrees to
construct the 24' wide roadway and 6' wide sidewalk. The developer shall be
responsible for the maintenance of the roadway.
7. Upon the developer fulfilling the obligations above, the developer may apply for
COs as appropriate. The developer is responsible for self managing all payments
and conveyance at the times outlined in this exhibit. From the time of the first
SDP the developer shall provide updates on the status of the building permits
every 6 months. If any of the conditions have not been met no COs will be issued
until conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the County.
8. All items as listed in this exhibit shall be clearly identified in the SDP for phase
one.
9. The CCRC shall be required to provide pedestrian and vehicular connections to
the 3D-foot wide access road along the western property line.
II. CONTINUING CARE DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
The developer of the independent living units and retirement community, its
successors or assigns, shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the
following operational standards:
November 3. 2009
yost<-'
, -,_.~.,.._P
_n'_'.....
_.._" "
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 117 of 119
I. The facility shall be for residents 62 years of age and older.
2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents.
3. The uses on-site shall be for the exclusive use of residents and their guests
on a continual basis.
4. Daily morning, afternoon and evening group transportation services, by a
20-24 seat community passenger bus or a private car shall be provided for
residents for the purposes of grocery and other local shopping, church and
medical office visits shall be provided on a daily basis.
5. There shall be an on-site manager or activities coordinator to assist
residents with their individual needs, This manager/coordinator shall also
be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for
lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-
site clubhouse on a daily basis.
6. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness
programs shall be provided for the residents on a daily basis. The facility
shall be in operation at the time of issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for the first habitable structure.
7. Each unit shall be equipped with pull cords designed to notify emergency
service providers in the event of a medical or other emergency.
8. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical
impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and
federal law and regulation.
III. LANDSCAPING AND SITE DESIGN
I. Buffer areas and walls shall be constructed in accordance with Exhibit C-3,
landscape buffer elevations.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL
I. The minimum native vegetation retention is 20 native trees. A maximum of
five cabbage palms can be used towards the requirement; the remaining shall
be native canopy trees. The native trees may be relocated into the proposed
buffer areas.
November 3. 2009
0~
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2009
Page 11S of 119
V. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The CPUD is subj ect to the architectural and site design standards of LDC
Section 5.50.00.
VI. UTILITIES
I. Any cost of relocation, changes or modifications to the existing utilities
required or incurred during the road improvements within the Orange
Blossom Drive ROW are the sole responsibility ofthe developer.
2. AU water and wastewater utilities constructed or extended within the
public ROW shall be conveyed to, owned by, and maintained by the
Collier County Water Sewer District and shall be required to be
appropriately sized to service parcels that installation wilJ affect.
,M_
.~_.
November 3, 2009
'^' r!-'
"_'_a ,~~... . -'_..,.... .
- ,>.~--_._-'--,.-
~
NOTICE OF INTENTTQ CONSIDER
ORDINANCE
-,
Agenda Item No. SA
December 1, 2 09
Page 119 of 19
Naples Dany News' SUnday, November 16, 2009 . 19D
Notice is hereby given that on TUES-
DAY, December 1, 2009. in the Board-
room, 3rd Floor, Administration Build-
ing, Coll18r County .GQ\/ernmel'lt ,Cen-
ter, 3301 Ean Tllmieml Trail, NaplM,
Florida; the Board of County Commis-
sioner.; will wnsiderthe enactment of
II County' Ordlnanu!. The m~t!ng wilt
(ommeJ'lce at 9;00 A.M. The title of
the proposed Ordinance is as fOllows.:
1')._
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNlY COMMISSIONERS OF (OLUER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. AMENDING ORDI-
NANCE NUMBER D4-Jll, AS AMENDED,
THE (OLUER COUNTY LAND DEVEL.
OPMENT -CODE, WHICH INCLUOES THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULA-
TIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATEO
AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING THE APPRO,,"RIATE
ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING, ~E ZONING CLASSlfICA-
nON OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL
PROPERTY FROM THE ORANGE BLOs..-
SOM GARDENS 'PLANNED UNIT DEVEL-
OPMENT IPUDl.' OAK GROVE
PlANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
AND AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DIS-
TRICTS TO A COMMERCIAL PlANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING
DISTRICT TO ALLOW A 'CONTINUING
CARE RETIRfMENT COMMUNITY FOR
A PROJECT KNOWN- AS THE SIENA
LAKES CCRCCPUO; LOCATED IN SEC-
TION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SO~. RANGE
2S EAST, IN COlliER COUNTY. FLORI-
DA, CONSISTING OF 29.25 +/. ACRES;
AND BY PROVI01NG:AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. I
P"tltlon: PUDZ-2008-AR.14091, LCS-
Wertminstl!r Naples LlC, represented
by Robert Duane, AICP of Hole Montes
and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of
Coleman, Yovanovich &, Koener, is re-
quening a Retone from the Orange
al0S5om Gardens Planned Unit Devel-
opment (PUD), the Oak GrOVl': PUD,
and the Agricultural (Al toning dis-
tricts 10 Ihe (ormTlefcial Planned Unit
Dev..lopm..nt (CPUD) for 01 764,524
squar..-foot continuing Colre retire-
ment community (CCRe) to b.. know., .
as the Siena lakes CCRC CPUO. Th.. oIp-
proximatl!ly 29,2S-acrl!,subject proper-
t)' is located in Section 1. Township 49
S,Range2SE,CoUierCounty, Florida.
(Companion item to PUOA-200B-AR.
14090andPUDA-20011-AR-14092)
.
Coplel of the proposed Ordinance are
on file with the Clerk lathe Board and
are available for inspection. All inter-
e..ted parties are invited to attend and
be heard,
'NOTE: All permn.. wishing to speak
on any agenda item mun register with
the COLlnly administrator prior to pre-
sentation 01 the agenda item to be
addre~'>ed. Individual ~peak..~ will be
limited to S minute. on ..ny item. The
5election of an individual to speak on
behalf of an organization or group Is
I'ncoLlraged. II r.,cognized by 1he
I Chairman, a ~pokesperson for a group
I' or organization may be allotted 10
minutes to speak on an item,
Persons wi~hin~ to have written or
graphic materials included _in the
Board agl!nda packets must submit
laid materIal a minimum of 3 weela
prior to the respediv! pub1ichuring.,
In any case, .....rinen materials mtended
- to be con~idered by the Board shall be
submitted to the appropriate Count)'
staff a minimum of seven days priort",
the public he"ring, All material used
in prelentations before the Board will.
become II permanent part of the re-
cord.
~
Any person who decides 10 appeal a
decision of the Soard will need a re-
cord of the proceedings pertaining
thereto and therefore, may need to
en..Llre that a ~erbatim record of tha
proceedings is made, which record in.
dLldl!"i the temmony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.,
If you are a pe~on with a disability
who needs any jlccommodation in or--
der to participate in this proc"l!ding,
I youareemitled.atnocosttoyoLl,to
r the provision of certain aSSistance.
Please comact the-Collier County Fa.
cillties Management Department, lo-
cated at 3301 Tamlami' Trail East,
8uilding W, Naple~ Fiorida .14112,
(239)252-8380. A.....isted linenmg de-
vices for the hearing impaired are
available in the County Commission.
ers'Office.
-IiOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLUER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DONNA FIAlA, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E_ SROCK, CLERK
By: MarthaVergara,D€lput)'Cler..
(SEAL)
" '"0' N,,11D'i430
Nnvp.mhpf -,,, ...__