February 6, The Antilles RPUD (fka Stillwater Bay) PUD Rezoning (PUDZ) Application Submittal #2 (PL ) Dear Mr.

Transcription

1 February 6, 2017 Mr. Eric Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL Subject: The Antilles RPUD (fka Stillwater Bay) PUD Rezoning (PUDZ) Application Submittal #2 (PL ) Dear Mr. Johnson: Please accept this letter in response to your insufficiency letter dated March 1, 2016 for the above subject project. This letter outlines responses to each comment including stipulations. The following items are being submitted electronically for distribution and review in support of the response for the above subject project: 1. One (1) copy of this cover letter; 2. One (1) copy of Completed PUD Exhibits; 3. One (1) copy of the revised RPUD Application; 4. One (1) copy of the Rezone Considerations; 5. One (1) copy of the Requested Deviations with Justifications; 6. One (1) courtesy copy of the Conceptual Master Plan in 24 x 36 format and one (1) in 8 ½ x 11 format; 7. One (1) copy of the Environmental Data Report (Rev Feb 2017); 8. One (1) copy of the Typical 50-foot ROW Section; 9. One (1) copy of the Typical Lot Layout; 10. One (1) original copies of the Covenant of Unified Control with attached Exhibit A ( Legal Description); 11. One (1) Affidavit of Authorization for RWA; 12. One (1) Affidavit of Authorization for Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester; 13. One (1) copy of the List of Owners; 14. One (1) copy of the School Impact Analysis application; and 15. One (1) set of the Boundary Survey. Additionally, pursuant with feedback received from the first neighborhood information meeting conducted for this project, changes to the PUD that are reflected in the exhibit documents include; a reduction in maximum density from 6.39 units per acre to 4.84 units per acre, the enhancement of perimeter buffers along both the south and east boundaries of the property, and a reduction in maximum building height from 40 to a zoned height of 30 (35 actual height) Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL (239) Fax (239)

2 Project team members collaborated with various homeowner s association representatives to incorporate changes to the PUD. These revisions were presented to the public at a second neighborhood information meeting on January 26 th. This meeting was well attended by the public, with members of homeowner associations speaking in support of the project and expressing appreciation for the effort put forth by the team on behalf of the project. Please note that the proposed enhanced perimeter buffers discussed at the second neighborhood information meeting are under review by the Fiddler s Creek CDD. Upon CDD approval, the proposed planting plan will be submitted to Collier County for review. In reply to your review comments, we offer the following responses in bold: Addressing GIS Review Reviewed By: Annis Moxam Correction Comment 1: Need a revised Addressing Checklist with all the Parcel ID / folio numbers as the Condo Units are not terminated. Response: Client has purchased all Condo Units and is in the process of terminating the condominium. Engineering Stormwater Review Reviewed By: Liz Gosselin Correction Comment 1: Explain how this application will accommodate existing flows from the north and through the proposed development. Response: There are not existing flows coming into the site from the north. The subject site was previously permitted through SFWMD and improved per their permit but is currently slated for redevelopment. The site is completely isolated from all offsite flows due to previous development onsite and on adjacent properties. There is a culvert under the entrance currently that connects the property to the north to the canal system to the west and this culvert and connection swale will not be impeded by development. The culvert will be extended to accommodate a wider entrance, but the flow will remain. A proposed permit modification will be submitted to SFWMD for approval with matching discharge points as previously approved. Correction Comment 2: Indicate on the Master Plan the ultimate stormwater discharge point, and will it have any impacts on the Port Au Prince development? Response: The discharge point for the drainage will match existing the permitted discharge point to the canal to the west adjacent to the Port Au Prince development. There will be no impacts to the Port Au Prince development as the proposed plan limits the offsite flows to what is currently permitted for the existing site through SFWMD. Correction Comment 3: Explain the flow patterns from the ultimate stormwater discharge point through the saltwater wetlands to the open water. Page 2 of 14

3 Response: The flow patterns follow the existing SFWMD ERP. The discharge point is to the west to the canal, then to the north under Port Au Prince and into the wetlands, then into the roadside ditch north of Port Au Prince to the west to the roadside ditch of CR 951, then under the road and into the low delta areas west of CR 951 and continue west into Rookery Bay. Environmental Review Reviewed By: Stephen Lenberger Correction Comment 1: The subject property is apparently located in an area proposed for development under the Deltona Settlement Agreement. Since lands were given over to the State of Florida for preservation as part of the Deltona Settlement Agreement, no additional preservation of native vegetation is required on the site by the County for lands identified for development under the Deltona Settlement Agreement. Include a note in Exhibit F Developer Commitments of the PUD document that the property is located in an area proposed for development under the Deltona Settlement Agreement and therefore no preservation of native vegetation is required by the County for the PUD. Response: Acknowledged. It has been confirmed by County and South Florida Water Management District staff that the subject property is part of the Deltona Settlement Agreement and as such no preservation of native vegetation is required. The PUD has been revised to be consistent with this comment. Correction Comment 2: If preserves are required by other agencies (SFWMD, USACOE), they must be labeled as preserve on the PUD master plan (LDC section H.1.a). Response: This comment is not applicable as there are no preserves required per the Deltona Settlement Agreement. Correction Comment 3: Setbacks from preserves for principal and accessory structures also apply to preserves required by other agencies (SFWMD, USACOE) (LDC H.3) and would need to be included in the table in Exhibit B Development Standards in the PUD document. Response: This comment is not applicable as there are no preserves required per the Deltona Settlement Agreement. Correction Comment 4: The Principal use within preserve should only be Preserves. All other uses listed in section IV Preserve Area of Exhibit A List of Permitted Uses, should be listed as Accessory Uses. Response: This comment is not applicable as there are no preserves required per the Deltona Settlement Agreement. Correction Comment 5: The entry of scrub wild olive (Osmanthus megacarpus) in the FLUCFCS Code for Australian pine (FLUCFCS Code 437) is most likely a miss-identification, since the plant is a central Florida shrub endemic. Please make the correction in the Environmental Data Report. Page 3 of 14

4 Response: As requested, the plant name has been corrected and changed to black olive (Bucida buceras). Correction Comment 6: Staff reviewed the previously approved Woodlake plat and could not find reference to any tract being identified as a preserve. Please amend the Environmental Data Report accordingly. Response: The Environmental Data Report has been revised accordingly. Correction Comment 7: Please enlarge and possibly change the color of the FLUCFCS Code numbers on the 8 ½ x 11 inch FLUCFCS map in the Environmental Data Report (Exhibit 3). They are barely legible as submitted. Response: As requested, the FLUCFCS map has been enlarged to 11 x 17 inches. Correction Comment 8: Remove the open space legend from Exhibit 7 of the Environmental Data Report. The areas depicted as open space on the exhibit are not identified as such on the PUD master plan. In general, open space requirements for PUDs should not be addressed in the Environmental Data Report. They are LDC requirements usually addressed in the PUD documents. Response: The open space areas have been relabeled as impacted, per a telephone discussion with Stephen Lenberger and Mike Myers on March 24, Transportation Pathways Review Reviewed By: Laurie Beard Correction Comment 1: Construct five foot wide concrete sidewalks along both sides of Port Au Prince Drive from development entrance to Collier Boulevard for pedestrian access to public transit. Response: Pursuant to conversation with Trinity Scott on 4/11/2016, this comment no longer applies. Transportation Planning Review Reviewed By: Michael Sawyer Correction Comment 1: Additional items that need to be addressed for Transportation Review: Rev.1: Reference the PUD oc. Page 6 of 10 master plan is not readable at reduced size; revise pedestrian / bike connection for Port Au Prince from potential to access roadway. See additional review comments and reflect those comments on all master plans. Response: The Master Plan has been revised accordingly. Correction Comment 2: Rev.1: Reference PUD Doc page 7 of 10 master plan text is not readable at reduced size. Response: The Master Plan has been revised accordingly. Page 4 of 14

5 Correction Comment 3: Rev.1: Reference PUD Doc. Page 10 of 10, revise PUD monitoring to contain standard monitoring language. Response: The PUD monitoring language has been revised accordingly. Correction Comment 4: Rev.1: Reference Deviation 1, justification; provide demonstration confirming street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs Response: As shown in the typical street section that is included with this submittal, the 50-foot ROW allows for minimum width travel lanes, sidewalks and easements for utilities as required. Correction Comment 5: Rev.1: Reference your rezone considerations portion of the submittal, page 6 7 of 7; clearly the TIS indicates that the development is consistent with GMP however the submittal indicates that facilities (roads) are available for the site, which is true but the conditions of the road facilities is not discussed. Confirm that the existing road condition meets county standards for the proposed development including but not limited to existing road/pavement condition and sidewalk connection to Collier Boulevard. The submittal specifically states that the property is served by adequate public facilities, please confirm. Response: Roads internal to the project are being rebuilt. The project is accessed via Port Au Prince Road. Port Au Prince Road is a County owned and maintained road. RWA assumes the roadway has sufficient capacity and that it meets County standards. Upgrades to the roadway should fall under County responsibility. The existing vested project allows 183 pm peak hour trips and the TIS presents a reduction to 140 pm peak hour trips. Correction Comment 6: Rev.1: Reference your rezone considerations portion of the submittal, page 6 7 of 7; interconnection portion of this submittal is not adequate. Stating that nor do we believe that it (interconnection) would be a welcomed proposition is not adequate. The requirement is to clearly demonstrate it is not practable. There appear to be between 6 and 8 potential location where interconnection is physically possible with adjacent developments containing roadways immediately next to this development as shown in the TIS master plan / site layout (page 8). Additionally this portion of the submittal does not include interconnection to the existing neighborhood on Port Au Prince up to 951. Response: A pedestrian and bicycle interconnection to Port Au Prince Road is shown at the project s entrance. Due to the internal design of the project, consisting of a loop road with residential tract on the outside of the loop, an interconnection is not practical to the west, east or south. Additionally, Fiddler s Creek to the east and south is a gated community. An interconnection to the north is not possible due to the location of the preserve. As supported by the Comprehensive Planning review, the neighboring properties to the east, south and west are developed, thereby precluding interconnections. The rezone considerations have been revised accordingly. Page 5 of 14

6 Correction Comment 7: Rev.1: Provide a developer commitment to improve the existing CAT bus stop on 951 and Port Au Prince. The current facility will not adequately serve the new development. Coordinate this commitment with CAT including adequate sidewalk connection on Port Au Prince. Response: Pursuant to conversation with Trinity Scott on 4/11/2016, this comment no longer applies. Correction Comment 8: Rev.1: Provide a developer commitment to provide extended turn lane improvements at the Collier Boulevard and Port Au Prince intersection. Response: The Developer will extend, or establish turn lanes at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Port Au Prince Road, based on meeting applicable turn lane warrant criteria. The specific warranted improvements will be determined during during the development approval process (Site Development Plan, or Construction Plans and Plat), as applicable. Correction Comment 9: Rev.1: Provide a developer commitment to limit total development to be consistent with TIS 140 PM Peak Hour trips. Response: The commitment has been added to the PUD exhibits. Zoning Review Reviewed By: Eric Johnson Correction 1: The legal description on the survey does not match the warranty deed. Response: Description on the survey is the overall description for the entire Woodlake Plat (plat book 13, page 116). There are several deeds, listed below: By that Warranty Deed dated September 15, 2015, recorded October 16, 2015 at OR Book 5205, Page 195, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. By that Warranty Deed dated September 15, 2015, recorded October 16, 2015 at OR Book 5205, Page 192, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. By that Warranty Deed dated September 15, 20I5, recorded October 16, 2015 at OR Book 5205, Page 197, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. By that Warranty Deed dated August 28, 2015, Recorded October 16, 2015 at OR Book 5204, Page 3721, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. By that Warranty Deed dated August 28, 2015, Recorded October 16, 2015 at OR Book 5204, Page 3725, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. By that Warranty Deed dated August 28, 2015, Recorded October 16, 2015 at OR Book 5204, Page 3729, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. By that Warranty Deed dated August 28, 2015, Recorded October 16, 2015 at OR Book 5204, Page 6 of 14

7 Page 3727, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. By that Warranty Deed dated August 28, 2015, Recorded October 16, 2015 at OR Book 5204, Page 3730, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. By that Warranty Deed dated August 28, 2015, Recorded December 9, 2015 at OR Book 5221, Page 3414, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. By that Warranty Deed dated November 20, 2015, Recorded December 1, 2015, at OR Book 5218, Page 3919, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. By Quit Claim Deed dated January 21, 2016, Recorded on March 24, 2016 at OR Book 5254, Page 1289 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Correction 2: The Parcel ID # is not listed on the Collier County Property Appraiser s website. Response: The application has been updated to reflect the correct folio numbers. Correction 3: The Collier County Property Appraiser s website indicates Parcel ID # , , and are owned by Alfonse & Greta Bottino. Response: The Property Appraiser s website has been updated and now shows parcels are owned by JMD Development & Investments LLC. Correction 4: On page 4 of the application (Property Information), please include an address or general location of the subject property. Response: The application has been updated to include the general location of the property. Correction 5: On the location map, which is provided on sheet 2 of 2 of the master plan, please identify external facilities, such as highways, shopping areas, cultural complexes and the like. The location map should show the location of proposed and existing roads, ROWs, and pedestrian systems within 1,500 feet of the proposed development. Response: The location map shows roads and neighborhoods external to the project. There are no highways, shopping areas or cultural complexes within 1,500 feet of the property. Correction 6: In Exhibit A of the proposed PUD Document, please eliminate in the opening paragraph that reads, Regulations for the development of The Antilles Response: Per from Eric Johnson to Ashley Caserta dated 3/21/2016, this language does not need to be omitted. Page 7 of 14

8 Correction 7: In Exhibit A of the proposed PUD Document, please clarify the maximum number of dwelling units proposed for the entire PUD. If 138 SFD units are proposed, the resulting density will be much lower than 6.4 du/ac. Response: 6.4 dwelling units per acre is the maximum density allowed and would most likely be achieved by building multi-family dwelling units. If the owner develops the property at less than 6.4 dwelling units by building single family homes or some combination of unit types, the resulting density will be lower than the maximum allowed. The number of SFD units and MFD units was determined using the number of trips as shown in the Traffic Impact Statement. 138 SFD units is equal to 280 MFD units when considering the number of trips that would result. Correction 8: In Exhibit A or C of the proposed PUD Document, shouldn t temporary model homes and any other principal / accessory use have design standards that are applicable thereto or is it intentionally silent so as to revert to the standards in the LDC? Response: Temporary model homes will be located within buildings in the Residential tract. Model units will later be converted into for sale units and will be built in compliance with development standards for permitted residential structures. The actual units will not be temporary, just their use as a model unit. Correction 9: In Exhibit A of the proposed PUD Document, is it redundant to indicate gatehouses and other access control structures under II.B since they are listed in I. General Permitted Uses. Response: Acknowledged. Gate houses and other access control structures are not listed under II. B. Correction 10: In Exhibit C of the proposed PUD Document, please include a minimum floor area for each type of residential unit. Response: Minimum floor area has been added to the PUD document. Correction 11: What is the difference between Single Family attached and Townhouse? Please provide a typical building/lot layout, including maintenance and drainage easements. Response: Single-family attached and townhouse units are per LDC definition. A typical lot exhibit is included with this submittal. Correction 12: What is the proposed timing for, location of, and sequence of phasing (or incremental) development within the PUD, in not in one (1) phase? Response: At this time, phasing has not yet been determined. A phasing plan, if the applicant chooses to phase the project, will be included in the PPL/SDP application. Page 8 of 14

9 Correction 13: Please provide a typical cross section of the 50 foot ROW and include it in the PUD Document. Response: A typical cross section for the 50-foot ROW has been included with this submittal. Correction 14: Staff has concerns the resultant lots will not be large enough to accommodate the requisite canopy tree. Please provide a typical lot detail showing lot shape, location (and setbacks) of principal / accessory structures, roof overhangs, swimming pools, trees, and location of public utility easement. Call me at for specific questions regarding this comment. Response: A typical lot layout has been included with this submittal. Correction 15: Please provide the location and nature of all existing public facilities, such as schools, parks, and fire stations that will service the PUD. Response: The location on public facilities such as schools, parks and fire stations are discussed in the Rezone Considerations attached as part of this resubmittal. Correction 16: On the master plan, show the location of all needed utilities to serve the PUD (as appropriate) water supply, sanitary sewer collection and treatment systems, stormwater collection and management system. Include size (as appropriate) of all existing drainage, water, sewer, and other utilities. Response: The PUD rezone application includes a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities. Flows and water demands are included in this part of the application and will be further addressed as part of the PPL. The location of all utilities is not needed at zoning and will be provided at SDP/PPL. Correction 17: On the master plan, include book and page numbers of platted parcels section lines, and other important physical features within and adjoining the proposed development. This information can be derived from the survey. Response: Per meeting with Ray Bellows, this information can be found on the survey. Correction 18: Since multi-family and single-family are proposed together in the R land use category, the master plan must identify the location of the multi-family buildings and/or lot lines. Response: All uses within the R land use category may be located within any area of the R tract. The Master Plan is conceptual in nature. Tract lines for multi-family, should they be proposed, will be included in the SDP application. Within any area of the R tracts adjacent to the the eastern and southern perimeter boundaries, as identified on the PUD Master Plan, maximum building height for multi-family units within said tracts shall be limited to 30 zoned height (35 actual height) and a maximum of two (2) stories. Page 9 of 14

10 Correction 19: Provide agreements, provisions, or covenants which govern the use, maintenance, and continued protection of the PUD and any of its common areas or facilities. With respect to the recreational uses, including provisions for ownership, operation, and maintenance. Response: To be addressed at PPL or SDP phase. Correction 20: Itemize development commitment for all infrastructure and related matters in Exhibit F of the proposed PUD Document. Response: Developer commitments have been updated and are included in the PUD exhibits document with this submittal. Correction 21: The School Impact Analysis does not indicate anything about the 138 SF homes. Why? Response: The school impact analysis included the higher number of possible units and has now been updated to show the option of one of the other. Correction 22: According to Section of the LDC, the minimum lot width for cluster housing is 40 feet except for cul-de-sac lots which may be 20 feet. Exhibit B of the PUD Document indicates 16 feet for the townhouses. Please justify. Response: Cluster development and townhouses are defined separately in the LDC and cluster development does not apply to townhouses. Cluster housing is not proposed as part of this rezone. The design standards referred to in this comment reference single-family units. Chapter s.g.1 of the Administrative Code allows PUDs to define their own development standards. Correction 23: According to Section of the LDC, the minimum building setbacks are as follows: Front Yards Front entry garage 20 feet; Side entry garage 10 feet. Side Yards ZLL 10 feet remaining side NO ZLL 5 feet each side Exhibit B proposes lesser setbacks. Please justify. Response: For single-family lots, reference footnote 1. Front loading garages must be set back 23 from the sidewalk. Side load garages must be set back 12 from back of curb. These standards are greater than the cluster development standards. However, The Antilles is not a cluster development and does not apply. County Attorney Review- Reviewed By: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Correction Comment 1: Please provide disclosure of ownership to names and person for the CCPC and BCC conflicts check for owner. Response: The list of owners for JMD Developments and Investments, LLC has been included as part of this resubmittal. Page 10 of 14

11 Correction Comment 2: Affidavit of Unified Control the affidavits needs to be signed by Dennis Albough as managing member of JMD Developments & Investments, LLC. Response: A new Affidavit of Unified Control has been included as part of this resubmittal. Correction Comment 3: Please attach Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Unified Control. Response: The Legal Description has been attached to the Covenant of Unified Control. Correction Comment 4: See comments on proposed PUD document. Response: Comments have been incorporated into the revised PUD Exhibits and have been included with this resubmittal. Landscape Review Reviewed By: Daniel Smith Correction Comment 1: Please provide typical lot for single family and duplex with cross section of 50 ROW. Show road, sidewalks, easements, required tree, and typical building / accessory structures on lot. Response: A typical lot detail sheet has been included as part of this resubmittal. Correction Comment 2: Please amend the note regarding minimum landscape buffering in the preserve to read Preserve to meet Type B buffer requirements after exotic removal. Response: The requested language has been added to the preserve/buffer note on the Master Plan. Informational Comments Informational: Environmental staff shall determine if the submitted information sufficiently addresses Section G of the administrative code. Response: Acknowledged. Future Land Use Element Consistency Review Reviewed By: Sue Faulkner 2/23/16 Petition Number: PUDZ PL REV 1 Petition Name: Antilles RPUD Rezone Request: The petitioner is requesting to re-zone a ±43.77-acre property from currently zoned MH (Mobile Home) to RPUD (Residential Planned Unit Development) to allow for the development of residential swelling units. The petitioner is proposing no more than 280 multi-family dwellings or 138 single family dwellings. Page 11 of 14

12 Location: The subject site is located at the easterly terminus of Port Au Prince Drive, ½ mile east of Collier Blvd. (SR 951) and ¼ mile north of Fiddler s Creek Parkway in Section 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Comprehensive Planning Comments: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this designation allows: residential development (variety of unit types), including associated accessory recreational uses and open space uses the uses proposed in this PUD. Under the FLUE s Density Rating System, the project is eligible for a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), without providing affordable workforce housing which is not proposed see below; eligible density is not an entitlement. The applicant proposes a maximum of 280 multi-family dwelling units (DUs) or 138 single family DUs, yielding 6.40 DU/A or 3.15 DU/A, respectively. Base Density CHHA Density Reduction Maximum eligible density 4 DU/A -1 DU/A 3 DU/A x acres = = 131 DUs However, the existing Mobile Home (MH) zoning on the site pre-dates the 1989 adoption of the GMP and has been deemed consistent by policy; the site is identified on Map FLUE -12, Existing Zoning Consistent with FLUE by Policy 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 ( improved property ). Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides that the residential zoning of such consistent by policy properties may be changed as long as the new zoning district does not allow a greater number of DUs than the existing zoning, and provided the overall intensity of the proposed zoning district is not of a greater intensity than the existing zoning as determined by a comparison of public facility impacts. The petitioner asserts that consistency with FLUE Policy 5.1 is achieved (reference Rezone application Antilles RPUD Rezone Considerations, section i) and identifies the uses and densities allowed by the existing and proposed zoning districts, and submitted a comparative analysis of public facility impacts of the existing and proposed uses and densities. FLUE Policy 5.1 states, in relevant part: Policy 5.1: All rezoning must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoning inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in the Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply; c. For such residentially zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the authorized number of dwelling units in the new zoning district does not exceed that authorized by the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of the development allowed by the new zoning district does not exceed that allowed by the existing zoning district. e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district. FLUE Policy 5.1 contains a two-part test. Below is staff s analysis and determination of each part. Part I: Does the new zoning district allow the same or a lower number of dwelling units as the existing zoning district? Page 12 of 14

13 This evaluation requires a comparison of existing and proposed density. The existing MH zoning district allows a maximum density of 7.26 DU/A based on minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 square feet (43,560 Sq.Ft./6,000 Sq.Ft. = 7.26); this yields a maximum of DUs (7.26 DU/A x acres = DUs 318 DUs). The proposed Antilles RPUD permits 212 multi-family DUs (a 33% reduction) or 138 single-family DUs (a 57% reduction). Conclusion: The new (proposed) zoning district does allow the same or a lower number of dwelling units as the existing zoning district. Also, staff notes that the CHHA prohibits new rezoning to allow mobile home development; this petition does the opposite it removes mobile home zoning. Analysis of relevant FLUE policies is provided below. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies are implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The subject site does not abut an arterial road or collector road.] Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties in an effort to help reduce vehicular congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The proposed Master Plan, Exhibit C. shows a loop road connecting to Port Au Prince Road, which will provide access to Collier Blvd. (SR 951).] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The site abuts Port Au Prince Road to the north; adjacent properties to the east, west and south are developed thereby precluding interconnections. Comprehensive Planning leaves review of the Transportation Element to Transportation Planning staff.] Page 13 of 14

14 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 process and types. [The petitioner stated in an application document titled, The Antilles RPUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section B) on page 6 or 7, it provides and internal network of sidewalks. Moreover, the proposed development will be consistent with Policy 7.4 by developing a compact walkable community with common open space and community amenities. The property size and configuration limits the ability to provide varying densities and civic facilities; three housing types are included which may reflect different prices. Open space is provided for as required by the Land Development Code (LCD). As no deviation is requested, sidewalks must be provided as required by the LDC. A potential bicycle/pedestrian connection is shown on Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, to Port Au Prince Road; staff supports this connection; however, that potential connection is not included in Exhibit F, Developer Commitments.] Conclusion Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. However, staff encourages the petitioner to add a commitment to Exhibit F, Developer Commitments, for the potential bike/pedestrian interconnection depicted on Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, to Port Au Prince Road. Response: Acknowledged. A commitment has been added to the PUD Exhibits document regarding the pedestrian interconnection to Port Au Prince Road. We trust the enclosed information is sufficient for your review and approval. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office at (239) Sincerely, RWA, Inc. Patrick Vanasse, AICP Director of Community Development cc: Dennis Albaugh File Page 14 of 14