Agenda 10/24/2017 Item # 9A10/24/2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number
95-33, the Briarwood PUD, as amended, to add 320 multi-family dwelling units in Tract B & C:
multi-family residential as an alternative to commercial development on Tract B & C: commercial
community; to add development standards for Tract B & C multi-family residential; to add Exhibit
A-1 Tract B & C Master Plan and Exhibit A-2 enhanced Type D buffer for property consisting of
209.17± acres; located on the east side of Livingston Road, north of Radio Road, in Section 31,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date.
(PL20170000007)
OBJECTIVE: The Briarwood Planned Unit Development (Briarwood PUD) currently permits
residential and commercial uses.
The Applicant requests amending the Briarwood PUD document to add an alternative of 320 multi-family
residential uses as a permitted use on Tract B and C, the commercial use areas, and adding specific
dimensional standards.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of
Livingston Road and Radio Road. Within the Briarwood PUD, Tract B and C is 15.99 acres of the 209.17
acre PUD. The Briarwood PUD was originally approved in 1976, as a residential and commercial project.
The petitioner is requesting that the Board consider an application to amend Ordinance No. 95 -33 to add
residential uses as an alternative option to the existing commercial tract of the PUD, Tract B and C. The
subject site does not lie within an Activity Center, and is compatible with surrounding, approved land use.
The subject property is bordered to the west and south by four lane roads and by multi-family
developments to the north and east. Additionally, there is industrial zoned land further to the west.
Adding 320 multi-family residential units, within the approved uses of the Briarwood PUD, is a similar
use to surrounding properties.
The proposed Ordinance amendment (See Exhibit A: Proposed Ordinance) will:
Amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Document to add Multi-Family Residential to
Tract B & C
Reduces the required Type D buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet along Livingston and Radio Roads,
only if Tract B & C is developed as multi-family
FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impacts on public facilities of each new development. These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to
maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the
requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by
Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with
the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees
collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional
revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the
value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the
criteria used by Staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use
9.A
Packet Pg. 30
10/24/2017
decisions such as this proposed PUD Amendment application. Staff is required to make a
recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the
recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of
consistency with the FLUE and the FLUM designation is a portion of the overall finding that is required,
and Staff believes the petition is consistent with the Collier County GMP as discussed in the attached
CCPC Staff Report. Staff believes that the proposed Amendment may also be found consistent with the
Future Land Use Element, GMP Transportation Element and the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element. Therefore, Zoning Staff recommends that the petition be found consist ent with the goals,
objective and policies of the overall GMP.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC): The CCPC heard the petition on August
17, 2017. A motion to approve was made by Commissioner Chrzanowski and seconded by Commissioner
Homiak. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 - 1 with Commissioner Dearborn in opposition and
Commissioner Fryer had an excused absence. There were approximately a dozen requested changes to
the PUD Document with this approval which included:
Access points will be gated;
Buildings will be Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) construction with tile roofs;
Provide enhanced Type A buffer adjacent to platted tract B-1 Multi-Family with 8 foot masonry
wall;
Section VII, 7.3 Development Standards, Table 1 changes were directed to remove SPS (Same as
Principal Structure) as a measurement for setbacks and to insert numerical, setback
measurements, and rename “Min. Waterbody Setback” row to read “Min. Lake Setback”;
In Section VII Tract B & C: Multi-Family Residential, 7.4 Deviations, CCPC requested language
be added to state that tree canopies not be located within or overhang into County’s road
easements;
In Section VII, 7.5, Development Commitment, the CCPC requested the vehicular
interconnection between Tract B and C and the overall Briarwood PUD be prohibited and to
outline signage requirements etc.;
In Section VII, 7.5 Development Commitments, more clearly identify what buffers are required
and what buffers are enhanced;
In Section VII, 7.5 D) revise to state that garages are fully enclosed;
In Section VII, 7.5 Development Commitments, add a statement that no fill shall be removed off -
site beyond what is allowed in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances for development
excavations;
Requested “decorative fence” references be changed to “decorative metal fence” to more
accurately reflect the fence material;
Revise PUD Section VII, 7.2 B) Accessory Uses to read, “Customary accessory uses and
structures to Multi-Family residential units, including enclosed garages, utility building, and hand
carwash.” Directed applicant to remove the reference to a recycling facility;
Master Plan must be updated to include an enclosed recycling and provide a minimum setback
from residential areas;
Refine the TIS, if necessary, since the TIS designated Lowes as a shopping center, and it is not.
CCPC asked applicant to check the trip calculations.
Environmental Planning supplemental narrative for Executive Summary
County staff was notified on October 9, 2017 of a new bald eagle nest within the Briarwood
PUD. Environmental Planning staff met onsite with the petitioner’s environmental consultant on
October 11, 2017. We observed a pair of bald eagles building a nest in a Slash Pine. As of the
9.A
Packet Pg. 31
10/24/2017
October 11 site visit, the nest had not been built to the size of a typical nest large enough for
nesting.
Staff’s recommends the petitioner add the following environmental commitments to the PUD:
The owner and developer shall adhere to the National Bald Eagle Management
Guidelines for any bald eagle nest and their protection zones. In the event the owner or
developer opts to obtain a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to
build closer to a nest than allowed by the Guidelines, a revision to the PUD Master
Concept Plan may be required according to the LDC including but not limited to an
Insubstantial Change to the Master Plan or PUD Amendment before the EAC and
Planning Commission and BCC for their review and approval.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is an amendment to the existing Briarwood PUD (Ordinance No.
95-33, as amended). The burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is
consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or
unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of
the listed criteria.
Criteria for PUD Amendments
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval
or not.
1. 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 PUD 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 surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
8. Consider: 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 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
9.A
Packet Pg. 32
10/24/2017
land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
11. Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of
traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or
projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise 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 property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent
property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot (“reasonably”) be used 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 permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD 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, art.II], as
amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD 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 has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of
four for Board approval (HFAC).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the recommendation of the CCPC, including the revisions
which have been incorporated into the attached PUD Document, and recommends approval of the
amendment to the Briarwood PUD.
Prepared by: Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
9.A
Packet Pg. 33
10/24/2017
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Briarwood Staff Report - signed (PDF)
2. Briarwood NIM Summary 5-22-2017 (PDF)
3. Briarwood Rezone Findings (PDF)
4. Legal Ad - Agenda ID 3551 (PDF)
5. Ordinance - 100917 (PDF)
9.A
Packet Pg. 34
10/24/2017
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.A
Doc ID: 3551
Item Summary: ***This item has been continued from the September 26, 2017 BCC meeting,
and the October 10, 2017 BCC meeting. *** This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance
amending Ordinance Number 95-33, the Briarwood PUD, as amended, to add 320 multi-family dwelling
units in Tract B & C: multi-family residential as an alternative to commercial development on Tract B &
C: commercial community; to add development standards for Tract B & C multi-family residential; to add
Exhibit A-1 Tract B & C Master Plan and Exhibit A-2 enhanced Type D buffer for property consisting of
209.17± acres; located on the east side of Livingston Road, north of Radio Road, in Section 31, Township
49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. (PL20170000007)
Meeting Date: 10/24/2017
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Fred Reischl
08/01/2017 9:32 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
08/01/2017 9:32 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 10/09/2017 1:42 PM
Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 10/09/2017 2:25 PM
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 10/09/2017 2:43 PM
Growth Management Department Jeanne Marcella Department Head Review Completed 10/09/2017 2:44 PM
Growth Management Department James French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 10/09/2017 4:55 PM
Growth Management Department Jeanne Marcella Additional Reviewer Skipped 10/09/2017 2:45 PM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 10/11/2017 9:51 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 10/11/2017 2:06 PM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 10/11/2017 4:44 PM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 10/12/2017 10:38 AM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 10/16/2017 12:46 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 10/24/2017 9:00 AM
9.A
Packet Pg. 35
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Briarwood Staff Report - signed (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.1Packet Pg. 37Attachment: Briarwood Staff Report - signed (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Briarwood Staff Report - signed (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Briarwood Staff Report - signed (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Briarwood Staff Report - signed (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Briarwood Staff Report - signed (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Briarwood Staff Report - signed (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Briarwood Staff Report - signed (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Briarwood Staff Report - signed (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Briarwood Staff Report - signed (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
Page 1
H:\2016\2016106\PUDA\NIM\Briarwood NIM Summary 5-22-2017.docx
NIM Summary
Briarwood PUDA (PUDA-PL-20170000007)
May 16, 2017, 5:30 p.m.
St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Trinity Hall
3901 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104
The subject property is a portion of the Briarwood PUD and consists of 15.97 ± acres. It is
located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Radio Road and Livingston Road in
Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Boyd Land Development, LLC has made a formal application (PUDA-PL-20170000007) to
Collier County to amend Ordinance No. 95-33, Briarwood PUD to allow the subject property to
be developed with 320 multi-family dwelling units as an alternative to the currently permitted
commercial development.
Note: This is a summary of the NIM. A recording is also provided.
Attendees:
On behalf of Applicant: Bret Boy, Boyd Development, Bob Mulhere, FAICP, Barry Jones, P.E.,
Norman Trebilcock, P.E., AICP, and Richard Yovanovich, Attorney.
County Staff: Nancy Gundlach
56 members of the public members of the public were counted in attendance (49 signed in on
attached sign-in sheet).
Mr. Boyd started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County staff.
He provided an overview of the project and went over the proposed PUD master plan, proposed
development scenario, landscaping and site access.
Following Mr. Boyd’s presentations, there was approximately one hour of questions from the
public in attendance. The public who spoke identified themselves as being from Briarwood,
Foxfire, and Maplewood communities. The questions centered on the following main topics:
traffic, noise generation, stormwater management, site access, landscaping and buffering.
Traffic:
With respect to traffic, concerns were expressed regarding the additional project related traffic as
well as concerns over traffic impacts not associated with the project. Questions and concerns
were expressed related to:
The loss of a traffic signal on Radio at Foxfire and the need for a traffic light on Radio
somewhere east of Briarwood;
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Briarwood NIM Summary 5-22-2017 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
Page 2
H:\2016\2016106\PUDA\NIM\Briarwood NIM Summary 5-22-2017.docx
The impacts of new traffic from the industrial area located adjacent to Briarwood to the
west (across Livingston Road)
The impacts of traffic during peak hours lined up to drop off and pick up students at the
charter school located on the northeast corner of Airport and Radio, including the
significant stacking of vehicles and the inadequate turn lane capacity at that location.
Both Norm Trebilcock and Bret Boyd discussed the fact that the proposed development will
generate significantly less traffic that what the site is zoned for now (commercial big box or
shopping center). It was also noted that the possibility of a traffic light on Radio east of
Briarwood, the impact of the Charter School traffic on the intersection of Airport and Radio, and
the new traffic access point to the industrial area along the west side of Livingston was a matter
for Collier County consideration but unrelated to the project request.
Noise:
Questions and concerns were expressed regarding traffic generated noise from Davis and
Livingston, and the lack of a sound wall extending fully down Livingston adjacent to Briarwood.
Concerns were also expressed related to the additional noise impact from project generated
traffic. Several attendees indicated that Collier County was planning to conduct a sound study
related to this matter.
It was explained by Mr. Boyd and Mr. Trebilcock that the issue of a sound wall and/or a sound
study was an off-site matter (not on the subject property) and that was a matter for discussion
between residents of Briarwood and Collier County Transportation staff. It was explained that
the developer is planning to install landscaping and a six foot wall along the boundary between
Briarwood and the proposed project, where the project is abutting residential development. It
was explained that this wall, coupled with the proposed buildings themselves will provide a
significant sound barrier.
Stormwater Management
Questions were asked and concerns expressed related to the storm water design. These included:
Concerns and questions regarding the age of the existing Briarwood stromwater
infrastructures and any potently impacts form interconnecting the proposed project lake
on to that system, and costs related thereto;
Concerns and questions regarding the adequacy of design and impacts associated with sit
drainage (for the project).
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Briarwood NIM Summary 5-22-2017 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
Page 3
H:\2016\2016106\PUDA\NIM\Briarwood NIM Summary 5-22-2017.docx
Barry Jones, P.E., explained that the overall Briarwood stromwater design and approved
SFWMD Permit included and was designed to handle all of the stromwater and drainage
impacts for the entire PUD, including this parcel. Moreover, Mr. Jones explained that the design
was adequate to handle the project generated stromwater without the additional proposed lake,
but that with the Lake the stromwater capacity and treatment is enhanced. Mr. Yovanovich
indicated that typically the HOA is responsible for any common infrastructure maintenance and
repair (such as the stormwater system infrastructure), but that he would review the PUD and the
HOA documents to determine if they address this issue in any specific way.
Site Access:
Questions were raised regarding site access.
Mr. Trebilcock and Mr. Boyd explained that the site already has improved access points with
turn lanes from both Radio Road and Livingston Road. Both points of site access allow right
and left in turning movements, and both are limited to right out only. Livingston will be the
project’s primary entrance, with Radio as the secondary entrance. The project is intended to be
gated at both points of ingress.
Landscaping and Buffering:
Several members of the public asked question regarding the project’s proposed landscape
buffering adjacent to the existing Briarwood Condominiums.
Mr. Boyd explained the intent is to install a 6 foot masonry wal l adjacent to the existing
condominiums. The wall will be set off the property and the buffer area will be landscaped with
high quality plant materials in order to provide an attractive buffer and perspective for the
adjacent condominium owners.
Other Questions:
Other questions were asked related to setback from radio and Livingston, projected rental fees,
unit mix, amenities, type of construction, potential of units being sold as condos in the future,
and developer experience.
Responses to these questions were provided by Mr. Boyd and other members of the project team.
The meeting concluded at approximately 6:58 PM.
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Briarwood NIM Summary 5-22-2017 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
BRIARWOOD REZONE FINDINGS:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. 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” (Staff’s 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.
The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff
determined the petition is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.1, the CCME, and the
Transportation Element.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Tracts B and C (as shown on the PUD Master Plan) were previously approved for
commercial uses. This petition merely seeks to add upscale storage facilities as a
permitted use. Staff described the existing land use pattern in the “Surroun ding Land
Use and Zoning” portion of this report.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the
subject site is already zoned PUD. No new land is being added to the PUD as part of
this amendment.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
The petitioner is not proposing to modify the boundaries of Tracts B and C of the PUD
Master Plan.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed amendment is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested to allow the
contract purchaser the opportunity to develop the land with principal and accessory
uses other than what the PUD currently allows.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by
the applicant and the stipulations offered by staff, can been deemed consistent with the
County’s land use policies reflected by the FLUE of the GMP. The PUD Documents
contains restrictions and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the
9.A.3
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Briarwood Rezone Findings (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not
adversely impact living conditions in the area.
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 roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. The
project’s development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency
management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals
are sought at time of SDP review.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Staff does not anticipate the project would create a drainage or surface water problem.
All drainage solutions would be addressed at the time of SDP review. The developer of
the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the
SFWMD in conjunction with any local site developmen t plan approvals and ultimate
construction on site.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to
comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD
document. The setbacks and project buffers will help ensure that light and air to
adjacent areas would not be substantially reduced.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be
internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of
factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since
value determination is driven by market conditions.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
The proposed zoning change should 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;
9.A.3
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Briarwood Rezone Findings (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment,
then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are
consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change
does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further
determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans
are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning;
As previously mentioned, the subject principal use is not well defined in both the LDC
and the PUD Document. As such, staff would not allow it to move forward in the
development process without a LDC code change, or in this case, an amendment to the
PUD. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through
the public hearing process.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
As noted earlier, the new principal use that is being requested with this amendment is
unique. It is staff’s opinion the amendment would not be out of scale with the needs of
the neighborhood or the County.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the proposed GMP and
the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
But, as previously stated, the principal use is not well defined and therefore, not
permitted anywhere, at least without a favorable LDC or PUD amendment.
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.
This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local
development regulations during the SDP approval process and again later as part of
the building permit process.
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.
This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional
elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff person s have
concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments
contained in the PUD document.
9.A.3
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Briarwood Rezone Findings (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
9.A.3
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Briarwood Rezone Findings (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda ID 3551 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)
9.A.5
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Ordinance - 100917 (3551 : Briarwood PUDA)