1. Ryan’s Landing Master Planned Development Application No. RZ-PUD-07-01

2. Location Map

3. Requested Action & Project History  March 6, 2006 – Application filed to rezone 27.7+ ac. Suburban Estate (EST-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow 69 s.f. units & 5 ac. Nature Park dedication.  Project before Local Planning Agency on July 19, 2006 – as Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment from ‘Greenbelt’ to ‘Residential’.  City Council transmitted FLUM to Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on August 15, 2006; second reading of FLUM pending (what was action)?  FLUM denied by City Council on March 20, 2007.  Developer & City engaged in pending litigation (when?)

4. Requested Action & Project History  (When?)Developer submitted alternative plan and filed new applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning for approval of a 69-lot single-family residential Master Planned Development (MPD).  City and Developer working to resolve and settle pending lawsuit by considering a FLUM designation of ‘Residential’ for 22.7± acres; rezoning property to MPD District; final engineering plans; and final plat.  Developer agrees to donate 5 acres of the 27.7± acres to City as a park site and meet certain Florida Green Development Standards (FLUM designation of 5 acres to remain ‘Greenbelt’).

5. Existing Future Land Use

6. PROPOSED Future Land Use

7. Conceptual plan

8. MPD Development Standards Single Family Residential (SFR-1) District Maximum Number of Lots and Density 69 single family residential lots Maximum Density 2.46 units per acre (i.e. 69/27.79) Minimum Lot Size 6,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width 50 feet (measured at front setback line) Minimum Living Area 1,200 square feet Minimum Front Setback* 20 feet Minimum Rear Setback* 10 feet Minimum Side Interior Setback* 5 feet Minimum Side Street Setback* 15 feet Maximum impervious surface ratio (per lot) 0.75 Maximum Building Height 35 feet *Setbacks measured from outer building wall, not eaves, to closest point of property lines.

9. MPD Infrastructure  Privately maintained stormwater and roads.  On-site detention (lake) outfall to Ryan Drive ditch via underground pipes constructed by Developer.  Design and construction materials and methods to be approved by City.  Project development in single phase. No concurrency issues.

10. Findings for MPD Approval Consistent with Comprehensive Plan:  Policy 1.1.2.2 - PUD densities generally compatible with assigned zoning district. Applicant proposes SFR-1 zoning district standards, compatible with ‘Residential’ FLUM designation.  Policy 1.2.1.2 - Encourage development where infrastructure is available. Infrastructure available; 5 ac. neighborhood park accessible to all residents.  Policy 1.2.1.4 - Leverage public resources. Public/private partnership increases City’s park holdings without incurring land costs. Recreation impact fee credit to developer as part of MPD Agreement prevents Developer from abandoning MPD Agreement and seeking Euclidian Zoning.

11. Findings for MPD Approval – Comprehensive Plan Consistency (continued)  Policy 3.3.4.2 – Neighborhood compatibility criteria applied to development proposals  10 to 50 ft. natural buffer on project perimeter adjacent to existing residences and road.  Park located on exterior of project, maximizing visibility to greater number of existing residents.  Open space created.

12. Findings for MPD Approval – Comprehensive Plan Consistency (continued)  Policy 4.5.1.2 – The City shall develop recreational trails and/or interpretive centers in parks with unique cultural, natural, historical or archeological resources. These facilities will provide learning experiences for residents and be managed to promote eco-tourism.  Policy 5.5.2.2 – The City shall implement a recycling program complying with the requirements specified in Section 403.706(2), F.S.  Policy 6.1.3.3 – The City shall consider alternate means and incentives to conserve water including, but not limited to, metered delivery limits on wells, irrigation meters, re-use of stormwater, and surface water pumps.  Policy 6.1.9.4 – The City shall protect and maintain the unique environmental features, including native vegetative communities, in designated passive City parks.

13. Findings for MPD Approval – Strategic Plan Goals  Goal 1 Objective 6 – Change user consumption patterns to conserve water use.  Goal 4 Objective 2 – Maintain and enhance development standards.  Goal 4 Objective 6 – Manage growth for quality, sustainable community with incorporating “green” development and regulation.  Goal 4 Objective 8 – Expand Leisure and recreational amenities.

14. Findings for MPD Approval Sustainable Practices Overview  The Applicant will seek Florida Green Building Coalition (FGBC) certification for the development while adhering to numerous low impact design (green) strategies that complement the Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan Goals.  PUD improvement and action commitments reflect objectives sampled from the FGBC Green Development Standard (Version 5.0 – January 2008).  Commitments focus on all six (6) categories of the Standard. 1.Protect Ecosystems and Conserve Natural Resources 2.Create a Green Circulation System 3.Green Utilities Practices 4.Amenities 5.Covenants and Deed Restrictions 6.Provide Educational Information to Help Achieve and Promote Green Living Practices.

15. Findings for MPD Approval  Environmental or Natural Resource Impacts? FLUM analysis determined minimal impacts; MPD approval does not change finding.  Economic impact? Construction and land development related employment; Park reduces automobile dependency; Lot size provides alternative to existing.  Government Services Impact? 69 additional units will have no appreciable effect on services.  Changed circumstances? Approval of the FLUM Amendment allows MPD providing mix of land uses and residential pattern lacking in the City.  Mistake in original classification? Change is result of FLUM Amendment.  Effect of change on area? Single family residential is compatible with the surrounding area and the MPD provides a more contemporary development pattern.  Health, safety, welfare, or morals impact? The rezoning of the site to MPD is seen as having neither a positive or negative impact on the overall welfare of the general public.