NUNNER Engineering & Owner Representative Services 8113 Lowbank Drive Naples, Florida 34109 239.404.0732 [email protected]December 23, 2016 Collier County Government Dan Smith 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Planned Unit Development Insubstantial Change PL20160001023 Villas at Greenwood Lake (PDI) Insufficiency Letter Rev. 2 RESPONSE LETTER Dear Mr. Smith: We have received Insufficiency Letter dated November 30, 2016. Please see below comments repeated and responses. Responses are provided in bold text. Updated items provided / uploaded to portal: 1. Response letter dated December 23, 2016 2. Updated Cross section - at end of this letter 3. Updated proposed Master Plan 4. Revised Text and Exhibits at end of this letter 5. HOA Documents uploaded: December 2016 Newsletter 04-28-16 Approved Minutes 6. Environmental Data STAFF COMMENTS: Rejected Review: Environmental Review Reviewed By: Stephen Lenberger Email: [email protected] Phone #: (239) 252-2915 Correction Comment 1: Section 4.7 of the PUD document (Ordinance 98-73) requires 6.1 acres (16 percent of the total PUD acreage), to be retained on site. The environmental data for the project states that only 5.5 acres of preserve have been platted for the project (PB 31 PG 87) and that approximately 0.47 acre of the existing preserve (Tract B) will be impacted for the new security wall. Amend the PUD master plan and environmental data accordingly. Review 2: Comment not addressed. Environmental data amended incorrectly. According to the Property Appraisers website, 5.54 acres of Preserve, Native Replant
Section 4.7 of the PUD document (Ordinance 98-73) requires 6.1 acres (16 percent of the
total PUD acreage), to be retained on site. The environmental data for the project states
that only 5.5 acres of preserve have been platted for the project (PB 31 PG 87) and that
approximately 0.47 acre of the existing preserve (Tract B) will be impacted for the new
security wall. Amend the PUD master plan and environmental data accordingly.
Review 2:
Comment not addressed. Environmental data amended incorrectly.
According to the Property Appraisers website, 5.54 acres of Preserve, Native Replant
NUNNER December 23, 2016
Villas at Greenwood Lake (PDI)
Insufficiency Letter Rev. 2 RESPONSE LETTER
Page 2 of 12
Areas included, have been previously platted as preserve (Tract B, Plat Book 31 Page
87). Section 4.7 of the PUD document (Ordinance 98-73) requires 6.1 acres of native
vegetation (16 percent of the total PUD acreage) to be retained within the PUD, leaving
0.6 acre of preserve still to be identified for the PUD. The environmental data for the
project states that approximately 0.47 acre of the existing preserve within Tract B will be
impacted for construction of the new security wall.
Amend the Preservation Area Plan to include an additional 0.6 acre of preserve still to be
identified for the PUD.
Amend the Native Vegetation Calculation section of the environmental data to address
the total preserve requirement for the PUD.
RESPONSE: The total required preserve equals 6.1 acres. The fence will impact 0.47 acres and this will be made up on the neighboring undeveloped parcel. The Environmental Data has been amended accordingly.
Correction Comment 2:
Native vegetation required to be retained on site shall be labeled as “Preserve” on all site
plans (LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.a). Amend the PUD master plan, other exhibits
submitted for the petition and environmental data accordingly.
Review 2:
Comment not addressed. To address, include the following note on the PUD master plan.
“The Upland Preserve and Native Replant Areas are the Preserve for the PUD.”
RESPONSE: Acknowledge and the resent submittal reflects the requested change.
Correction Comment 4:
The FLUCFCS Code numbers on the FLUCFCS Code aerial in the environmental data
are not legible. The aerial also needs to contain a legend for the FLUCFC Codes
contained on it. Other writing, scale of aerial, etc. on the FLUCFC Code aerial, is also not
legible. Please amend accordingly.
Review 2:
Comment not addressed. FLUCFCS Code aerial not updated and removed from copy of
environmental data submitted.
RESPONSE: The FLUCCS Code map was previously submitted. An additional map is provided with the amended Environmental Data provided with this submittal.
Provide a response to EACH of the PUD substantial change criteria under LDC Section
10.02.13 E.1
UPDATE 11/28/16--Please provide a response to each criteria. "N/A" is not a sufficient
response.
RESPONSE: Please see direct responses to each criteria below.
E.
Changes and amendments. There are three types of changes to a PUD Ordinance: Substantial, Insubstantial, and Minor.
1.
Substantial changes. Any substantial change(s) to an approved PUD Ordinance shall require the review and recommendation of the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of County
Commissioners as a PUD amendment prior to implementation. Applicants shall be required to submit and process a new application complete with pertinent supporting data, as set forth in the
Administrative Code. For the purpose of this section, a substantial change shall be deemed to exist where:
a.
A proposed change in the boundary of the PUD;
RESPONSE: This application does not change the boundary
of the PUD.
b.
A proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or
intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development;
RESPONSE: This application does not proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development.
c.
A proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation or
open space areas within the development not to exceed 5 percent of the total acreage previously designated as such, or 5 acres in area;
NUNNER December 23, 2016
Villas at Greenwood Lake (PDI)
Insufficiency Letter Rev. 2 RESPONSE LETTER
Page 4 of 12
RESPONSE: This application does not propose a decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation or open space areas within the development.
d.
A proposed increase in the size of areas used for nonresidential
uses, to include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation or open spaces), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses;
RESPONSE: This application does not propose an increase
in the size of areas used for nonresidential uses, to include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation or open spaces), or a
proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses.
e.
A substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited to, increases in traffic
generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts on other public facilities;
RESPONSE: This application will not increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited
to, increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts on other public facilities.
f.
A change that will result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation
Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers;
RESPONSE: This application will not result in land use
activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
g.
A change that will result in a requirement for increased
stormwater retention, or will otherwise increase stormwater discharges;
NUNNER December 23, 2016
Villas at Greenwood Lake (PDI)
Insufficiency Letter Rev. 2 RESPONSE LETTER
Page 5 of 12
RESPONSE: This application will not result in a requirement
for increased stormwater retention, or will otherwise increase stormwater discharges.
h.
A change that will bring about a relationship to an abutting land
use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use;
RESPONSE: This application will not bring about a
relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use.
i.
Any modification to the PUD master plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other element of the Growth
Management Plan or which modification would increase the density or intensity of the permitted land uses;
RESPONSE: This application is not inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other element of the Growth
Management Plan.
j.
The proposed change is to a PUD district designated as a
development of regional impact (DRI) and approved pursuant to F.S. § 380.06, where such change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to F.S. § 380.06(19).
Any change that meets the criterion of F.S. § 380.06(19)(e)2, and any changes to a DRI/PUD master plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier
County under this LDC section 10.02.13; or
RESPONSE: This application will not change the PUD
district designation.
k.
Any modification in the PUD master plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under this
LDC section 10.02.13.
RESPONSE: This application is not a substantial change and
has been deemed insubstantial by Planning Director Ray Bellows.
