CCPC Agenda 01/18/2018AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., JANUARY 18, 2018, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES,
FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A
MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN
ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A
MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL
MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF
APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – December 21, 2017
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS
7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PDI-PL20160003125: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an
insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 09-65, as amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC
CPUD, to retain the existing total number of permitted residential units but revising the
ratio of permitted residential units by increasing the number of independent living units,
increasing the number of assisted living beds and decreasing the number of skilled nursing
beds and memory care beds; and to revise the Master Plan by changing the number of
buildings, the entrance location, and the site, lake and building configurations. The subject
property consists of 29.25± acres, located on the north side of Orange Blossom Road
between Airport-Pulling Road and Livingston Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to Agenda item 9B, Orange Blossom
Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD). [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, AICP, Zoning
Manager]
B. PL20170000524: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 92-75, as amended, the Orange Blossom
Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD); providing for amendment to add temporary
principal uses for off-site sales, marketing and administration for the Siena Lakes PUD
and to add principal uses accessory to St. Katherine’s Greek Orthodox Church including
administrative offices and classrooms ancillary to the church; providing for development
standards; providing for amendment to the master plan and providing for an effective date.
The subject property consisting of 5.85 acres is located on the north side of Orange
Blossom Drive approximately 1/10 of a mile east of Airport Pulling Road in Section 1,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Companion to Agenda
item 9A, Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD). [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager]
C. PDI-PL20170003546: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an
insubstantial change to the Sabal Bay Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD), Ordinance No. 05-59, as amended, to reduce the minimum floor area for multi-
family/timeshare dwellings (excluding townhouses) from 700 square feet to 551 square
feet, for up to approximately 15 percent of the total dwelling units on Tract 1 of the Sabal
Bay Commercial Plat - Phase One subdivision. The subject property is located on the
north side of Thomasson Drive, approximately 500 feet west of U.S. 41 East, in
Section 24, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
±34.19 acres. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner]
D. PL20170001083: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, 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 a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) zoning district to allow for development of up to 40,000 square feet of
commercial development for a project to be known as 15501 Old US 41 CPUD; and
providing an effective date. The subject property is located on the west side of Old US
41, approximately one mile north of the US 41 and Old US 41 intersection, in Section
10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy
Finn, AICP, Principal Planner]
E. 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 land regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of
Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more
specifically amending the following: Chapter One – General Provisions, including Section
1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.03
Commercial Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.04 Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.07
Overlay Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts; Chapter Three –
Resource Protection, including Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards; Chapter Four –
Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.01 Dimensional
Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section 4.02.03 Specific Standards
for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures, Section 4.02.04 Standards for Cluster
Residential Design, Section 4.02.06 Standards for Development in Airport Zones, Section
4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts, Section
4.03.04 Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split; Chapter Six – Infrastructure Improvements
and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, including Section 6.01.05 Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan; Chapter Nine – Variations from Code Requirements, including
Section 9.03.03 Types of Nonconformities, Section 9.04.04 Specific Requirements for
Minor After-the-Fact Encroachment; Chapter Ten – Application, Review, and Decision-
Making Procedures, including Section 10.01.02 Development Orders Required, Section
10.02.09 Requirements for Text Amendments to the LDC, Section 10.02.13 Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Procedures, Section 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings
for Land Use Petitions; Section Four, Adoption of Amendments to the Collier County
Official Zoning Atlas, more specifically amending the following: Zoning Map Numbers
522930, 2033N, 2033S, 2034N, 2034S to remove the ACSC designation for consistency
with the Growth Management Plan; Section Five, Conflict and Severability; Section Six,
Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Seven, Effective
Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager]
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. ADJORN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp
December 21, 2017
Page 1 of 17
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, December 21, 2017
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Karen Homiak
Stan Chrzanowski
Diane Ebert
Edwin Fryer
Joe Schmitt
ABSENT: Mark Strain
Patrick Dearborn
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Manager
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
Tom Eastman, School District Representative
December 21, 2017
Page 2 of 17
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Good morning, and welcome to the Collier County Planning
Commission meeting of December 21st, 2017.
Would you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Diane, roll call, please.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, good morning.
Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Ebert is here.
Mr. Strain is absent.
Ms. Homiak?
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Present; here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And Mr. Dearborn is absent.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you.
January 4th would be our next meeting. Are we having one?
MR. BELLOWS: No, we are not.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We are not. So the next one is the 16th of January then? Yes? And we're
having that one, I would assume.
MR. BELLOWS: That would be January 18th.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, 18th. Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eighteenth.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And we'll have that one, yes?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Will everybody be here then or --
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I will.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I will.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I might be sober by then.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. You think?
MR. BELLOWS: I've been also asked to see if there would be a quorum on the February 5th
meeting.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Everybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I will not be here.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So the rest of us that are here will be here then.
Okay. Approval of the minutes of November 16th.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye.
December 21, 2017
Page 3 of 17
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: BCC recaps?
MR. BELLOWS: Can we ask for -- if there will be a quorum on the February --
MR. BOSI: Good morning. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
Jeremy Frantz, our Land Development Code manager, amendment manager, asked if I could see if
there will be a quorum -- if we could get a quorum for a night meeting February 7th. It's a Wednesday.
Would the Planning Commission -- it's because the Land Development Code amendments, ones that affect
land use, have to be heard after 5:00. So what we're trying to find is a time frame that will work with most of
the Planning Commissioners' schedules. And what we've proposed is February 7th for a 5:05 start time.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm available.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will be gone the entire month of February.
MR. BOSI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So the rest of us that are here will be there.
MR. BOSI: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thanks.
Okay. Any BCC report?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On December 12th the Board of County Commissioners heard the
Logan/Immokalee PUD rezone amendment, that was approved on the summary agenda, as well as the Sabal
Bay PDI that had to do with the second directory sign. The Vanderbilt Commons PUDA was also approved
on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Also, the matter of off-site preservation, being very complicated, the
Commission decided to roll it over to January, I think. It is a complicated issue and possibly, because so
much has evolved from where we are to where we think we might end up, I wonder if it would make sense to
try to simplify what is put before them, if that's possible.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the vote has occurred, so I'm not sure what --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, they voted to carry it over, but we could still put material in front
of them.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director, again.
Yes, they did; they asked for more time. Their intention, I believe -- and they're coordinating with the
County Manager's organization to have more one-on-one conversations with Jeremy, myself, others involved
to explain the full breadth of the initiation of the LDC amendment to the alternatives that were being
proposed by DSAC, by CCLAC, and the Planning Commission.
Like I said, as you know, it's taken on a little bit more of a character than when it originally started,
so I think they're just looking for a little more clarity in terms of where it started and where it was going and
what the recommendations are from each of those bodies.
And during those conversations, I can most certainly let the Board of County Commissioners, on an
individual basis, know that the Planning Commission has offered to provide another crack to simplify or
clarify any of those issues if they need that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you.
Okay. Chairman's report; I have none.
There's no consent agenda.
***So the first advertised public hearing will be CU-PL20160001875, 220 Basic Drive.
And so we'll first hear from the petitioner, then the staff, and then we'll have the speakers. Could
you -- anybody who wishes to speak on this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Go ahead.
December 21, 2017
Page 4 of 17
MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners, Madam Chair. I'm Jeff Wright with the law firm
of Henderson and Franklin, and I'm here with a team: Blair Foley, the property owner; Charles
Duvall -- excuse me, Bruce Duvall. There's our team right there.
And we're seeking a conditional use to allow storage at what used to be the Big Cypress Flea Market.
The location is shown there. It's about 12 miles southeast of downtown Naples; about five miles southeast of
Lely. And I have a closer view there.
And there's a view of the site. The site at issue here is the center site, which is the former flea market
site, and you see that there's a gazebo and the flea market site there.
Right now the property's in -- there's a picture of the site plan that Mr. Foley put together. It depicts
the conditional use layout that we're seeking approval for today.
A little history on the property. It was rezoned from ag to the present zoning, C4, back in 1988. As I
said, this is the former site of the Big Cypress Marketplace Flea Market. It was acquired by the current owner
in 2015.
And we're seeking to convert the existing flea market to a storage facility. And C4 zoning does
allow self-storage as a conditional use, and that is in LDC Section 2.03.03.D.1.C.24. And the LDC lays out
the requirements for approval of a conditional use, and I've listed some of them there. There's also the staff
report that incorporates those findings and Mr. Foley's application in which he addressed each of those.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, pardon me for interrupting, but I've got a very basic question that I
won't -- if I can't get it answered, I won't understand where you're going forward from here.
On Page 2 of our material, there is an image, a drawing, showing the site north of 41.
MR. WRIGHT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then on the next page, unless north is down on that page, it shows it
on the south.
MR. WRIGHT: Yes. If you look here at this aerial map, you'll see there's kind of a bell-bottom
shape on the southern end of the parcel, and then if you look at the next slide, which is the conceptual site
plan, you'll see that bell-bottom shape on the top. I think that's what you're asking about. The north arrow is
pointing down on that, so the orientation is, I think, reversed.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Who prepared that?
MR. WRIGHT: The site plan was prepared by Mr. Foley.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. It's confusing when north is not up, is the point I'm trying to
make.
MR. WRIGHT: Understood. So hopefully that will give you some orientation.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
MR. WRIGHT: There's some of the requirements in the LDC and, as I mentioned, there's a staff
report, and the application itself addresses each of those. And, obviously, the site, we're not changing
anything on the site. We're simply asking for a change of use. And as many of you know, this property kind
of has been abandoned for many years, and this is an opportunity to actually get some beneficial use out of
the parcel.
All provisions for ingress and egress have been addressed. Parking is fairly simple with self-storage
because it's one of the least intensive uses as far as parking goes. So, for example, there's eight required for
this proposed use, and we're providing 32.
Ingress/egress have been addressed in the existing site plan, and staff's recommending approval.
And we're asking that you find that the requirements for a conditional use have been met and recommend
approval of the petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you
have.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question.
Jeff, if you go back to your slide, it shows the site aerial. My only question is, will the conditional
use apply to all three parcels, the two parking areas and the structure itself?
MR. WRIGHT: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If I recall, some of that was zoned TTRV, and there were some
December 21, 2017
Page 5 of 17
other areas that impacted a Comp Plan amendment that was done for this site many years ago. But I'm just
trying to clarify. Is it just the facility for the C4, or will it be the other two parcels?
MR. WRIGHT: Just the facility for the C4.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. But the parking will continue to support the facility?
MR. WRIGHT: It will not be necessary but, yes, it will.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's what I thought, it wouldn't be necessary because it's
no longer a flea market.
MR. WRIGHT: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is the parking lot being used for storage now? It looks like it.
MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm not sure when that image was taken. I know that since acquiring the
property in 2015, the owner's taken significant steps at the urging of the county. I think early on in the
process they were told you're going to have to clean that up, so they got out there, and they have been
cleaning it up. I'm sure Irma wasn't helpful to that cause, but they are trying to clean that up as they go along.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So they won't use that for storage?
MR. WRIGHT: No. What we're seeking today is indoor storage in that separate parcel.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I know that. So they won't use that for storage? Obviously there's things
stored there, so --
MR. WRIGHT: No. The current zoning is ag, so the plan is not to use it as storage. It's eventually,
hopefully, going to be put to beneficial use as well.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are you breaking it up, I guess, is what --
MR. WRIGHT: Well, right now the parcel is -- there's three parcels here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR. WRIGHT: If you see the one to your left, that would be northwest of the subject site, that's C5
zoning, and to the southeast it's ag zoning. So there's a mess -- kind of a hodgepodge of zoning along that
way. We're isolating the C4 use and just tying to get that conditional use for storage so we can put some of
this to beneficial use. The property to the north is the TTRVC parcel, and that's not being impacted at all by
this.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that travel trailer area part of the purchase of this property? So
that belongs to the owner as well?
MR. WRIGHT: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No? Okay.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Just curious, because I didn't know what the future use was
going to be for some of these abutting properties that were once all part of the basic -- basic -- when he
developed that site. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: What's the target market here; Fiddler's Creek?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, I think there's obviously population growth out that way. And I think -- I'm
not sure. I can't speak to that. I'm not an expert in the storage market. But I think that with the recent
hurricane there's been a spike in demand for storage, and I think it's a well-timed request in that regard.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a few questions.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, starting on Page 5 of 9.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's in the staff report or their --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, this is the first time it comes up, but it appears in the staff report.
But I think my -- well, I'll hold this for the staff report. I'll hold that one at least.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Stan -- oh, sorry.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's see. Then I go to -- I've got another one for the staff. And -- oh,
this question, for the petitioner. At the NIM it's indicated that there were two questions. That was all that
came from the public on this, just two questions?
MR. WRIGHT: As far as I know. I was not present, but I believe that's accurate, yes. And Mr.
Foley was there; he held the NIM, so he can speak to that if you'd like.
December 21, 2017
Page 6 of 17
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, were there only two questions?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: By way of disclosure, I talked to Mr. Wright and Mr. Foley
prior to the meeting. I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I talked to Jeff Wright prior -- just prior to the meeting as well.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I forgot to ask that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's my disclosure. I had a couple of questions that he answered.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Okay. I guess the staff report then.
MR. FINN: Yes. Hello. For the record, I'm Tim Finn. I'm principal planner.
The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And you had questions?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. First of all, experience tells me that there is no capacity problem
on the East Trail traffic-wise down there, right? But I just -- in the analysis of 5.1, the FLUE policy, the
statement is made that there's a reduction. And I assume there's not going to be -- that this will not bring
about an actual reduction of present conditions but rather a reduction if you measure against the hypothetical
under the current zoning if this had remained a flea market.
MR. BELLOWS: That is my understanding. For the record, Ray Bellows. That is my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Then just for your general information for the future,
on Page 6 of 9, in Section 4 there is either a typo or grammatical error that has found its way into your
template. It says "the affect of the conditional use." It should be "effect." Just -- you might want to correct
your template. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Nothing? No?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Were there any speakers? I don't think I saw any speakers. Oh.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You can come up, ma'am.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. My name is Wanda Rodriguez, and I am a resident on Trinity
Place, which is the neighborhood immediately east of the former flea market property which is before you
today.
I'm here to express my objection to the granting of this conditional use for an indoor self-storage
facility unless certain conditions are applied.
As you see on the overhead, the property under discussion consists of a large structure and two
parking lots on either side. My primary concern today is the parking area to the east which fronts on Trinity
Place.
You can see --
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: This petition is just for --
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- that one parcel --
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- with separate parking.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: But I will submit to you that because the three parcels are under joint ownership
and the owner does treat them as all one unified business, that it's appropriate to discuss what's going on on
those properties as well, and the fact that this owner that's requesting a conditional use from you today has not
been in compliance with previous parking exemptions and documents and things that have been granted by
the county.
December 21, 2017
Page 7 of 17
For example, the landscape buffer which runs along Trinity Place and the portion of U.S. 41 that
fronts that parking lot is completely overgrown, has not been maintained. The sidewalks which run along
that particular portion are completely overgrown and inaccessible. While understanding that that's
not -- they're talking about a conditional use for a building but, yet, their treatment of the property as a whole
is important.
The property is also overrun with exotics. There was a parking exemption, Resolution No. 07-332,
which would require them to remove those exotics, which should require them to maintain that vegetative
buffer, which they're not doing.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I think this is more of a code enforcement issue with the separate property,
because that's not what the petition is we have before us today, so we can't do anything.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: I understand that that is a remedy. It's not something that, you know, I would
typically do would be to call Code Enforcement on my neighbors. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to
come before you and point out how this owner is currently using their property.
As you have noted, the outdoor storage going on on that parcel is extensive. As I went by this
morning, you can see concrete culverts and piles of brick and large trucks and storage facilities. It's
completely covered with this type of storage going on on that parking lot.
And so all I would ask you today is if you choose to grant this conditional use, that you also make a
condition that this property owner must comply with previous agreements, previous parking exemption, the
site plans, any resolutions and ordinances that have previously been granted in concern with the building and
the associated parking lots, which are all treated as a unit.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You mentioned sidewalks. Is the sidewalk on their property,
or is it in the county right-of-way?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's, I believe, on their property. It adjoins county right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I think it's the county right-of-way or state road. Go ahead. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comment. It really is a code issue. I understand you said that we
make it a provision that the statutes be enforced. The statutes should be enforced regardless of the provision.
And so I think it's just somewhat of a moot point to add because we have no authority to waive any
requirement for the compliance with the existing zoning. It's something that should be taken care of through
the county.
I would only state that, as a matter of record, that the staff ought to get Code Enforcement out there
and enforce the code as per required by the existing zoning on this property, and it is not allowed nor is it a
site approved for storage.
It's a parking area, and if there's equipment or vehicles or construction material or other materials out
there, they either get a conditional use for it or Code Enforcement issues a citation, and they deal through the
Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree completely. There is a remedy available to you, and it sounds
like it would give you the relief you're looking for. And then if we were to put some additional language in
what we did, I don't think that adds anything for you. Your point's a good, and I think you ought to pursue it
to get the place cleaned up, but I'm not sure that anything that we could do gives you additional teeth.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would ask that -- Mr. French, Jamie, would you follow up and
ensure that Code Enforcement, which comes under your purview, I believe, still -- that Code Enforcement
makes a visit out there and does what it needs to do in order to enforce the existing zoning.
Thank you.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: We have no more registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Was there anyone else that wanted to speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I thank you for bringing that issue up. It's a valid point, and I
trust Jamie will take care of it.
December 21, 2017
Page 8 of 17
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Back to the petition before us. Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of the conditional use as requested.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll add for the record, certainly Jeff Wright is well aware of the
enforcement requirements, being the former Code Enforcement director, so I'm sure he'll discuss the
requirements with Mr. Foley.
MR. WRIGHT: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you.
MR. WRIGHT: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You had to get that in.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. You know, everybody knows everybody in the county here,
so...
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: ***Okay. Our next petition is PUDZ-PL20150001459, the Antilles
residential PUD.
Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission?
MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures outside of those in the public record.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich, and there was a strange absence
of emails of any kind.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think I got one.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: A couple of them.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure; I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with a couple residents in the area.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich.
Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and, for full disclosure, I am a
supervisor on the Board of Supervisors for CDD1 in Fiddler's Creek, though I do not believe there's any
conflict because this has nothing to do, materially, with any financial or other issues involved with Fiddler's
Creek. I discussed it with Rich, I've discussed it with the attorney on the CDD board as well, and I do not
believe there's any conflict that I would have to recuse myself from voting on this unless the County Attorney
believes otherwise. But I don't think there's anything in conflict. And I do live in Fiddler's Creek, and I live
on Mulberry Road, which is the street adjacent to this property.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have no issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. All those wishing to speak on this item, please rise and be sworn in
by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And, again, we'll hear from the petitioner, the staff, and then the
public speakers.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Karen, I have to make one other disclosure; I'm sorry. I'm looking
December 21, 2017
Page 9 of 17
for the page. It was the first public hearing or, correction, the neighborhood information meeting. I was
present at that meeting. I was not at the second.
And on Page 194 of the page it says, Joe Smith, S-m-i-t-h. The questions that were asked, I
was -- that was, in fact, me, Joe Schmitt, S-c-h-m-i-t-t.
I asked questions about the density. I knew the answer. I wanted the petitioner to make sure the
public was aware of how the density was calculated, and I trust Mr. Yovanovich will go over that in detail so
everybody understands, because at the first public hearing there was a lot of concern about the density and
folks not understanding the density by right and the grandfathering through the zoning reevaluation, but I
trust Rich will cover that. So I just wanted to make sure, for the record, that is, in fact, me that asked that
question at that first public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. I think I kind of gathered that was you, and Phil Roman is Phil
Brougham.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Phil Brougham, yes.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of
the applicant.
With me are Dennis Albaugh who represents the property owner; Patrick Vanasse and Chris Wright
with RWA, the planner and engineer on the project; Norm Trebilcock is our transportation consultant; Mike
Myers is our environmental consultant; and Dayna Fendrick is our landscaping consultant.
Judging by the lack of emails and the relative small attendance and the only person who stood up
who's not on my team, I'm going to do an expedited summary of what we have.
I put on the visualizer an outline of the existing property. It is currently zoned mobile home, which
would allow up to 7.26 units per acre on the roughly 44 acres which would result in a potential density of 318
units.
There was a previous mobile home park there that had 236 units on it. So for transportation
concurrency, we're vested at the same number of trips as you would have for 236 mobile homes since those
impact fees have been paid and addressed.
So, interestingly enough, if you were to take the 212 multifamily homes that we want to do -- and
this is not in your information. We already have our Site Development Plan in, so I'm providing you some
updates on what you don't have.
Under the SDP TIS the 212 multifamily units is only three more peak-hour trips than the previously
approved and built 236 mobile homes. We're actually in for less units than the 212, but since we're getting
approved for the 212, I thought I'd just put that on the record.
Your staff's already determined that we're consistent with the Growth Management Plan. This was a
piece of property that went through the zoning evaluation process when the Growth Management Plan was
originally adopted. Unlike a property becoming nonconforming, which would mean that if something were
to happen to that piece of property, you'd have to meet the now current regulations. The zoning reevaluation
process recognized the mobile home zoning, and that mobile home exists in perpetuity. The fact that the
units have been removed doesn't change the zoning or somehow convert it to the current standards under the
Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me for interrupting.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I just want to ask the County Attorney if he and she are in
agreement that interpretation.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: When I first saw this, it seemed to me like it was a nonconforming use
and, therefore, when all the mobile homes leave, you would think that the nonconforming use permission
would have been lost.
I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich yesterday and asked this question. He indicated that it's not exactly a
nonconforming use. It's something else that, as he just said, even if you take all the mobile homes off, that
use would be allowed to continue in perpetuity. Is that correct?
December 21, 2017
Page 10 of 17
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: My understanding is that Mr. Bosi and Mr. Bellows, who are the
interpreters of the Growth Management Plan, have opined that this is consistent by policy. So what that
means is, yes, they could have mobile home units on the property.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: In perpetuity?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. It's zoned mobile home today. Mobile homes could go back
on the property today.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it's sort of zoned mobile homes today. It, by policy, is, I think --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't understand what you mean "sort of." It is.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not on the GMP.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there's a map that's with the Growth Management Plan series, and
you'll see the maps have -- it identifies the different properties that have been deemed consistent by policy.
This property is one of those properties on the map series.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because it's preexisting.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm fine with that. I just wanted -- I'm good. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to hit the highlights of questions that were asked in my
presentation.
We've asked for -- basically, I think the reason you don't have a lot of people here is there were
concerns about the original density and the original height of the structures that were proposed for the project.
After the first neighborhood information meeting, we worked closely with the residents of the two, basically,
adjoining Fiddler's Creek neighborhoods as well as the CDD to address concerns of the neighbors.
And what I'll do is I'll put on the master plan. Essentially -- and this is where I get directionally
challenged. And I think I have the north arrow correct.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're good there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: To the east is one of the communities in Fiddler's Creek. I think Mr. Schmitt
lives there. And we agreed to limit the height of the buildings where you see the two R's highlighted in
yellow with the -- I guess that's not an asterisk; with a little star. We agreed to limit the height to two -- not to
exceed two stories, 30 feet zoned, 35 feet actual, and then we have an enhanced buffer that's in your packet.
And then, likewise, to the south, similar limitations with a different buffer, which is in your -- which
is in your packet, to address sightlines and concerns that residents had.
So I believe that's probably why you don't see a lot of people here, because we worked closely with
those neighborhoods to address the concerns that they raised.
And we also have an agreement with the CDD, because we will be adjacent to and sharing their
buffer to install the different buffers we're talking about. So we have an agreement with the CDD to address
and maintain -- install and maintain the landscaping we've committed to include.
We have one -- we have several deviations, but I was asked questions about one of the deviations
which had to do with the reduction in parking for the recreational facility partly justified by there being golf
carts within the community. Just -- the 12-plexes have been designed where the parking has room for golf
cart parking.
Overall the project for just the residential units would be required to have 424 parking spaces. We're
actually providing 573 parking spaces for the residential units. So we're not one of those projects where we're
really trying to get by at the minimum. We've decided that it was better to have more parking closer to the
units where people would really be parking, so we put additional parking in those areas and, in exchange,
we're asking for a slight reduction in the parking by the community areas.
And we have designed this so people can buy golf carts to use the parking spaces at the community
center. But in addition, when you -- the site plan itself has some additional overflow parking for the buildings
near the community center. So I think we've justified and have addressed the parking deviation. I believe
that information is in your backup packet.
But I think that was -- those were the major questions that were concerned and what we did
differently from the original presentation to the community to the second was, basically, the reduction in
December 21, 2017
Page 11 of 17
height and the increase in the buffers were the significant changes that were made between version one that
was presented in the NIM and version two that was presented at the second NIM.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those were three points?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Those were the major points, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Say them one more time.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Reduction in height around the perimeter that I talked about, and the
increased and enhanced buffers along the east and south perimeters were the primary major changes between
version one and version two, and a reduction in density from, I believe it was, 280 for multifamily to 212
multifamily.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So those three?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Those were the three major.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And I guess we also increased the distance from the existing fence to
40 feet. And I can -- I know, Mr. Fryer, you had asked for an exhibit showing distance from structures to
structures. And I have something that -- proposed structures to existing structures if you want to see that on
the visualizer. But, essentially, the -- let me just put it up.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It was 80 to the south, and my question was what about in the other
three directions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, to the -- yes. And I'll tell you that. I'll read it, then I'll put it up.
Because I think if I put it there, I won't be able to see it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: To the east, the nearest structure is 158.36 feet, approximately. To the
property line to the north it's 213.04 feet, and to the west to -- the nearest one will be 151.63 feet, then the
next building is 266.6 feet, 303.85 feet, and 309.65 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you put that on the visualizer, Rich? Because the north doesn't
sound right. It's got to be much further than what you just said.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's just to the property line.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To the nearest structure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, we don't even know what's going to be to the north, so I gave you a
property line to the north because that's where our preserve is, and who knows what's going to happen.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, that's a good picture, and it clearly shows that -- to the east
it primarily abuts Mulberry, and then just to the east of Mulberry is golf course.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The first house on Mulberry is almost to the north end of the
property, almost, but -- as it's shown there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And then I think the other deviation that's going to cause you to also act as
the EAC is, as you can see on this and on the previous exhibit, that area right there is a potential
interconnection to a property to the north, and it's addressed as a deviation; that we could actually have the
preserve area actually be split in two if that actually happens. But we'll still meet the required 4.04, I think it
is, acres of preserve.
I think I covered all the points.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One question on the preserve I would like to add. And I know
that -- my understanding is the property owner does not own the property to the north.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Potentially may purchase that property, which would then
eventually require the interconnect. I would only ask that we ensure that if that preserve is split, that if there's
property developed to the north, that somehow that portion of the preserve that's split is interconnected with
an element of preserve to the north so it's just not a free-standing preserve. Do you understand what I just
said?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, and the thing I have is it's hard for me to commit a restriction on
someone else's property at this point.
December 21, 2017
Page 12 of 17
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: However, I'm not an environmental consultant, but my guess in looking at
this is it's probably an area that we're going to be required -- that property owner's probably going to be
required to put in a preserve anyway based upon the current Growth Management Plan procedures and
processes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would only ask that staff -- when that eventuality comes that that's
evaluated as part of property in the preserve -- because I'm well aware of the property to the north. It's low
and it's wet. And it's going to be a significant challenge to try and develop that property.
This was previously developed and certainly has its challenges in itself from base flood elevation and
other issues associated with this property. It is pretty low. That's why it's -- your proposing one-story and
two-story over parking. That's still the proposal right now; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's two stories adjacent to where I showed you, and we can go, I
believe, to three stories.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But one story over parking. The lower level is parking, and then
one story on the east and the south, and then two stories over parking in the interior section to meet the base
flood elevation requirements.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Along the perimeter ground-level parking with two stories of building, and
then the 12-plexes are understory parking.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait a minute. Now I'm confused.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They have -- well --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Patrick's going to have to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have understory parking along the perimeter. We have garages,
but we don't have understory parking with the typical two stories above it. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the perimeter will have habitable floor. The base flood elevation
will be habitable floor. That's the design right now? Not that it impacts the zoning. It just impacts the
height, because I know this area is quite low, which is going to necessitate bringing fill in to reach the BFE.
MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse with RWA.
What we are proposing, what's been submitted as part of our SDP application is coach homes along
the eastern and southern boundaries; coach homes typical to coach homes throughout the county where they
have their own garages at the floor -- at the ground level and a maximum of 30 feet of height for the units.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So it looks similar to Fiddler's Creek?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very similar, yes.
MR. VANASSE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to put something on the record again. I failed -- I was
the administrator for Community Development, which essentially is now Growth Management Division
when they combined the Community Development and Transportation. But I was involved significantly
when this property was condemned.
It was a blight in East Naples, South Naples, whatever you want to call it, and there was a very
significant issue in regards to the code enforcement and condemning properties. So that's how it resulted in
being cleared out. All those -- most of those were low -- actually, deplorable rentals, and it's been vacant
probably for, what, 12 years now, 11, 12 years. I think it must be close to that; nine, 10, 11 years. So,
frankly, anything's an improvement over what exists now.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're way better than "anything."
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just have a comment. I don't -- Mr. Vanasse, I want to mention that
in reading the neighborhood information meeting -- and you had Mr. Yovanovich there -- this is the best
neighborhood meeting, other than a couple misspellings and names, that we've had, and I just hope that the
rest of them will be like this.
December 21, 2017
Page 13 of 17
MR. YOVANOVICH: They're all like this.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I really appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The transcript, you mean?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The transcript was wonderful, and I really -- just really wanted to let
you know I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I echo the comments of the two previous commissioners and would
also like to commend the developer, the petitioner, for being responsive to the homeowners. And I don't
know whether questions will remain. We'll see. But from my perspective, I think some significant progress
was made between the first and second NIM --
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was not at the second NIM, but after the first NIM, I'm surprised
Patrick got out of there in one piece because it was almost pitchforks and torches, and --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And all of the emails, or almost all the emails, were sent in prior to the
first NIM. So it makes it for interesting reading, but it deals with issues that have largely been resolved.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The developer worked -- and I'm sure you're going to hear from Mr.
Brougham, who is a neighbor -- neighboring property, and the developer worked closely with the community
in resolving the concerns.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. Having said that, most sincerely, I do have some questions.
First of all, again, in the first NIM -- and I realize a lot of this has been superceded, but some comments were
made, and I just want to check on the status of what arguably might be commitments.
It was said on Page 50 of the materials, of the electronic Page 50, quote, "We are going to agree to
pay to repair the fence and pay for the removal of the ficus, and we are talking about the replacement plan.
We will keep talking until we figure out which plant we will incorporate," et cetera, et cetera.
And, Rich, I think that that's been accomplished, right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So there's been agreement reached on that, which is good. And
you answered my questions about proximity on the other three sides, which is good.
Then I go to Page 58 at the second NIM. No, that's already been covered.
Page 60 of the second NIM.
"Question: Will Fiddler's Creek maintain the plantings within their 15 foot outside of the fence?
"Answer: This is to be determined."
A status report on that, please. Same thing?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we have an agreement in place.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. Again, on Page 60, it was asked by a property owner if
this -- these structures could be turned into mass rentals, and your answer had to do with the marketplace,
which I appreciate, and I think it's probably the most that could be said in response to that question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think also when you look at the site plan and the layout and the fact
that there will be some coach homes, et cetera, they don't really lend themself to buying up all of the units and
creating a mass rental community. That doesn't mean that individual unit owners may not rent their units, but
it's not going to be your typical apartment complex.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then my last question has to do with an email that appeared on
Page 107, and it raises a subject that I'd like to know a little more about. And the email says, "JMD
Associates, without permission or regard for the impact to our neighborhood, destroyed the trees. The
damage is irreparable. This is not an act of a potential good neighbor, and we fear the quality of life," et
cetera, et cetera.
Could that be explained a little more to us?
MR. ALBAUGH: My name is Dennis Albaugh with JM Development. Thank you.
The ficus trees were leaning way over onto our property, so we asked permission to cut them, and
then there was a misunderstanding between us and the -- I'm not sure what part of the county that was there.
And, anyway, they said to take them low because they were, like, hanging at an angle over onto ours, and we
December 21, 2017
Page 14 of 17
could have just cut them literally right on the property line, which made no sense. A year later they'd have
been back on our property again.
So there was a misunderstanding between what they told us I could do and what our contractor cut
those. And then there was a settlement that we're in agreement. And they were very nice to work with,
and -- not at first, and then I'm sure they didn't think I was either at first. But since that time we've both put a
plan in, and I'm very proud of this development, and I'm very excited.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That problem's been resolved?
MR. ALBAUGH: It has been resolved.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's unique about that piece of property is that there's the fence,
and I believe Fiddler's Creek still owns another six feet --
MR. ALBAUGH: Fifteen feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- fifteen feet beyond the fence to the west, and there were plantings
all on that side.
MR. ALBAUGH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that's -- the fence is really not right on the property line, and
those plantings were all on the western side of the existing fence.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get it. Thank you. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else have any questions for the -- no? Okay. Staff report?
MR. FINN: For the record, my name is Tim Finn; principal planner.
The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, that was short and sweet.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was short.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Any questions? Staff questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: See if I can come up with some questions. No, I'm good. He's the
new guy coming in. We've got to break him in.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I know. We should be giving him a hard time or something.
Okay. Public speakers? Phil?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have one speaker; Phil Brougham.
MR. BROUGHAM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Phil Brougham. I'm a resident of
Fiddler's Creek; specifically live in a village called Pepper Tree immediately to the south of this development,
and I'm also the chairman of Fiddler's Creek CDD No. 1.
And I'm certainly going to endorse this application, but a little bit of a background -- and I sat on this
commission for a couple years, and I encountered a lot of developer applications and developer resistance and
developer's typical response to any resistance.
And I can tell you that after the first neighborhood information meeting, which was very well
attended by residents in Fiddler's Creek where objections were voiced to the then presented plan, which
would have essentially displayed a wall to the perimeter residents in Fiddler's Creek -- Mr. Aubaugh and
Patrick Vanasse and their team working extensively between the first NIM and the second with me
personally, the other presidents of some of the villages, to come up with a revised plan to not only reduce the
number of units but also took care of the primary objections around the perimeter in reducing that building
height. The building height is very significant, but it's also supplemented with a commitment for a very
enhanced buffer that will provide, at planting, almost an entirely screened view from the homes in Fiddler's
Creek, particularly on the south side into that tier of structures. Obviously, when you plant new plants, you
can only plant them to 15 or 30 feet. That's a commitment in the buffer, whatever it is, and it takes time to
fully flesh out and grow, and I think that's been very well accepted.
I'm not saying that every single homeowner in Fiddler's Creek would stand up and rave about this
development. There's always going to be one or two people that have objections to doing anything,
construction noise, et cetera, et cetera. But Mr. Aubaugh and his team have gone out of their way, in my
opinion, to accommodate it. It's going to be a very good development.
Just a couple of items I want to put on the record. We do have agreements. We have cross-access
December 21, 2017
Page 15 of 17
easement agreements to maintain the respective buffers. There's going to be two access gates on the
northbound Mulberry fence line. This may or may not get -- or should be on the record but, anyway, due to
hurricane damage, most of that perimeter fence is trash. So the Community Development District, in
conjunction with Fiddler's Creek Foundation, is setting about to replace that fence entirely with totally new
material, which will benefit Mr. Aubaugh and his homeowners.
But another commitment I want to be sure is on the record, that the CDD continues to be apprised of
and has approval and feedback rights over any Site Development Plans that are submitted to the county, et
cetera, et cetera. And we have a commitment also in the agreement that prior to any vertical construction the
buffers will be planted. The buffers go in first, then you can go vertical, and I believe I'm stating that
correctly.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
MR. BROUGHAM: Other than that, the District has formally approved it by letter to Mr. Albaugh's
company. We have no objections at all.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question for you, Mr. Brougham.
Why did Fiddler's Creek put up a fence and then go 15 feet beyond, or a wall, and then go 15 feet
beyond?
MR. BROUGHAM: To accommodate planting on the other side. We had ficus trees in there
screening on the opposite side, let's say on the Antilles side. That buffer was primarily planted with,
unfortunately, ficus trees. They were put in there specifically to provide a background screen, if you will,
from what existed there prior and also as a deterrent for people accessing the top of the fence and flopping
over and doing nasty things inside Fiddler's Creek.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Just a question I had.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Protection.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Protection.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably would have to ask Mr. Strain that question.
MR. BROUGHAM: That's all I had.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you, Phil.
Is there anyone else that wanted to speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Do you have anything else, Rich, or --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got a long rebuttal, but I'll go ahead and waive it.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're trying to snatch the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to try to snatch defeat --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- defeat from the jaws of victory.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Are there any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one other comment I'd like to make; I should have made it
earlier during the staff part. On Page 9 of 25 -- and this, again, is part of the template. Maybe it revolves
around an official interpretation of the word "comparable," but comparable doesn't mean similar, and
comparable simply is a characteristic of two things. However disparate they may be in the entire universe,
they can still be compared. And so instead of saying "comparable to," I think what we mean to say, either
"favorably comparable to" or "similar in all material respects."
And I would just -- and, again, this is on Page 9 of 25. I ask that staff give some consideration to
abandoning what at least I consider, based upon my understanding of the plain meaning of the word
"comparable," to be meaningless language.
That's all I've got.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's it? Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Nothing? Okay. Close the --
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
December 21, 2017
Page 16 of 17
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And we also have to vote as the EAC.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. New business; I have nothing. Old business; nothing.
Any public comment?
MR. BELLOWS: Vice Chairman, let me -- I do have a request from our operations staff to
mention -- give you a heads-up that you'll be, at some point in the future, receiving a survey from staff. We
want to better meet your needs, and the survey will help us get there. So I just wanted to give you a heads-up
on that.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The Planning Commission will receive a survey from the staff?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's also a survey on the county's website. This is different,
though?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, tailored more towards your needs.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, okay, thank you. Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to --
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Christmas miracle. It's almost 10:00. Not quite.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: One thing.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I threatened to say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
in my native tongue, which is Wesolych Swiat Bozego Narodzenia i Szczesliwego Nowego Roku, but Terri
didn't think she could spell that.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, I don't think she can. Merry Christmas.
MR. EASTMAN: Merry Christmas to Chairman Strain as well. I'm sure he's watching.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Were you going to say something?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, just to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
December 21, 2017
Page 17 of 17
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 9:59 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
_____________________________________
MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected _____.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY
TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
AGENDA ITEM 9-A
EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT PROVIDED PUD AND REZONE FINDINGS
FOR PETITION NO. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES CPUD
PUD FINDINGS:
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.
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.
3. 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 staffs 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 the 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 interconnections 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 further to the east. However, finding this to be inconsistent with
Attachment A Page 1 of 10
EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT PROVIDED PUD AND REZONE FINDINGS
FOR PETITION NO. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES CPUD
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 staffs 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-1 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 15 -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
Page 2 of 10
EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT PROVIDED PUD AND REZONE FINDINGS
FOR PETITION NO. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES CPUD
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 15 -foot Type D buffer would be
provided, as required by the LDC.
S. 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 required for the future four-laning of this facility, as described in
developer commitment I.3 contained in Exhibit F to the CPDD 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
Page 3 of 10
EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT PROVIDED PUD AND REZONE FINDINGS
FOR PETITION NO. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES CPUD
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 purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
Proposed Development Standards for Principal Structures vs. C-3 Standards of LDC
The project's development standards are contained in Exhibit B of the CPUD
documents. As ALFs are permitted in the C-1 through the C-5 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 floor area requirement of the C-3 zoning district by 130 square feet. The
CPUD would also provide setbacks for principal structures in excess of the LDC
minimum requirement of one half the building's height. Maximum zoned building
Page 4 of 10
Proposed C-3
Minimum Lot Area
1,274,130 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
1,672 feet
75 feet
Minimum Floor Area
Independent Living Units (ILU)
830 sq. ft.
700 sq. ft.
Assisted Living Units (ALU)
609 sq. ft
n/a
Skilled Nursing Facility SNF
305 sq. ft.
n/a
Minimum Yard Setbacks
3, 4 and 5 -story structures
From north
80 feet
From south -
100 feet
50% of building
From west
60 feet
height; but >25 feet
From east
90 feet
All other structures
25 feet
Min. Distance between Structures
35 feet
none
Setbacks from Lakes
20 feet
n/a
Maximum Zoned Building Height
ILUs (5 -story, with one story being
parking)
60 feet
ILUs (4 -story, no under parking)
60 feet
50 feet
ILUs (3 -story)
41.5 feet
ALUs
42 feet
SNFs
42 feet
Commons/Auditorium
42 feet
The project's development standards are contained in Exhibit B of the CPUD
documents. As ALFs are permitted in the C-1 through the C-5 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 floor area requirement of the C-3 zoning district by 130 square feet. The
CPUD would also provide setbacks for principal structures in excess of the LDC
minimum requirement of one half the building's height. Maximum zoned building
Page 4 of 10
EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT PROVIDED PUD AND REZONE FINDINGS
FOR PETITION NO. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES CPUD
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
(the C-4, zoning district, however, would allow heights of 75 feet), the applicant has
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 their 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 the C-3 zoning
district.
o.
Pro osed LDC
Minimum Yard Setbacks
From north
25 feet
From south
25 feet
0 -SPS
From west
40 feet
From east
25 feet
Minimum Distance between Structures
10 feet
0-10 feet
Maximum Zoned Building Height
30 feet
none
rroposea Levetopment 3tunaaras, jor Accessory Structures vs. C-3 Standards of LDC
REZONE FINDINGS:
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 higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where
existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Urban -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, libraries, and community centers where feasible and mutually
acceptable. As the proposed CPUD is for group housing for the elderly, and would be in
close proximity to the main campus of the Collier County Public Library, First Baptist
Church and St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, this project would be consistent
Page 5 of 10
EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT PROVIDED PUD AND REZONE FINDINGS
FOR PETITION NO. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES CPUD
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
infill 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 CPDD 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 Greek 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 influence living conditions in the neighborhood;
The proposed CPUD would not adversely affect the living conditions in the
neighborhood. With respect to increased traffic, the developer would be required to
Page 6 of 10
EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT PROVIDED PUD AND REZONE FINDINGS
FOR PETITION NO. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES CPUD
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-laning 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.3.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 of traffic 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 air 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 property 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;
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
Page 7 of 10
EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT PROVIDED PUD AND REZONE FINDINGS
FOR PETITION NO. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES CPUD
other than zoning; and zoning in and of itself may or 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
adjacent 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 with 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
existing zoning;
Being zoned 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 rather 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
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
Page 8 of 10
EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT PROVIDED PUD AND REZONE FINDINGS
FOR PETITION NO. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES CPUD
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 require some site alteration. However, the subject site would
require only limited clearing to execute the proposed development plan due to its
former 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.
As previously noted, the proposed CPUD petition has been reviewed by the
Transportation Planning Department and the Utilities Department, both of which have
Page 9 of 10
EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT PROVIDED PUD AND REZONE FINDINGS
FOR PETITION NO. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES CPUD
recommended approval of the project finding that it would not have an adverse impact
on the levels of service for public facilities.
Page 10 of 10
NIM Summary
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (PDI -PL -20160003125)
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (PUDA-PL-20170000524)
May 23,2017,5:30 p.m.
Collier County Public Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater
2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida 34109
The NIM was held for the above referenced petitions submitted b Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice
President, Planning Services and Business Development of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A on behalf of Erickson Living. The petitions
are described as follows:
(1) An Insubstantial Change to Ordinance No. 09-65, as amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to
retain the existing total number of permitted residential units but revising the ratio of permitted
residential units by increasing the number of independent living units, increasing the number of
assisted living beds and decreasing the number of skilled nursing beds and memory care beds; to
reduce the maximum number of stories for independent living unit buildings from five to four;
and to revise the Master Plan by changing the number of buildings, the entrance location, and the
site, lake and building configuration. The subject property consists of 29.25± acres, located on the
north side of Orange Blossom Road between Airport -Pulling Road and Livingston Road, in
Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Sienna Lakes PUD is
owned by Erickson Living (ELP Naples, LLC), who is the applicant for this petition.
(2) An Amendment to Ordinance No. 09-67, as amended, the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, to
allow for an off-site sales, marketing, and administration facility on the subject site, and to revise
the PUD Master Plan, land uses, and development standards to accompany the request. The
subject property consists of 5.85 acres and is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive,
east of the intersection of Airport Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section I,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Orange Blossom Gardens PUD is
owned by St Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, who is the applicant for this petition
(working with Erickson Living).
Note: This is a summary of the NIM. A recording is also provided.
Attendees:
On behalf of Applicants:
Steve Montgomery, Vice President of Development, Erickson Living
David P. Archibald, Vice President of Development, Erickson Living
Rev. Fr. Philemon Patitsas, St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church
Richard Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester
Bob Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes
Terry Cole, P.E., Vice President, Hole Montes
Barry Jones, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Hole Montes
Paula McMichael, AICP, Director of Planning, Hole Montes
Jeremie Chastain, Planner, Hole Montes
County Staff: Nancy Gundlach, RLA, AICP. Principal Planner Collier County
Approximately 40 members of the public attended.
Page 1 of 3
11:\2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.docx
Attachment B
Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. Mr.
Montgomery then introduced himself and Mr. Archibald. He spoke about Erickson Living, including an
overview of the company and this project. Mr. Mulhere explained the NIM process, the process for
approval and provided an overview of the project. He then went over the proposed changes to both
Sienna Lakes (through the PDI) and Orange Blossom Gardens (through the PUDA).
Following Mr. Mulhere's presentation, there was approximately one hour of questions from the public in
attendance. The members of the public who attended identified themselves as residents of Lakeside of
Naples to the north. Bridgewater Bay to the east, and Walden Oaks to the south. The following issues
were raised:
Existing Traffic Concerns/Proaose(l recess Road
Several questions were raised in regards to the proposed access road along the west of the Siena Lakes
CPUD. Increased traffic, large delivery trucks, and access to Lakeside were of concern.
It was explained that the access road will be paved to the property line, but will not be connected to
Lakeside unless they want it to. There will be an easement in place if they decide to do so. The gate will
be installed and paid for by Erickson with an easement from Lakeside. Through traffic into Lakeside will
only be available to Lakeside residents. The access road will have a sidewalk and %Hill be pedestrian
friendly. Mr. Montgomery estimated 2 to 3 deliveries per week once construction has been completed via
the proposed access road. He also explained that traffic due to residents of the proposed living facility
along the access road will be minimal, as the main entrance is via Orange Blossom on the south side and
there is shuttle, bus, and chauffeur services offered. Mr. Mulhere explained that the project as proposed
by these two petitions would not increase trips from what is already approved in both PVDs, and that any
other reasonable assumed use of this land would likely be residential development which would have a
higher trip generation than the CCRC.
Concerns were also raised in regards to existing traffic, speed of travel, and the future widening of Orange
Blossom. It was explained that the County is in the process of obtaining ROW (right-of-way) to expand
Orange Blossom Dr. as well as make improvements to the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport,
but that those improvements were not in the County's five year plan. Also, residents were encouraged to
contact the county in regards to the speed and amount of traffic currently on Orange Blossom Dr.
Walden Oaks residents were concerned re: the widening of Orange Blossom Drive, as they felt prior
construction caused stormwater to drain onto the properties adjacent. It was explained that future
widening will be on the north side away from Walden Oaks and will not affect them.
Desien of the Sales Facility
Attendees asked what the Sales Facility will look like and whether it will be permanent. The Sales
Facility is a permanent structure with architecture consistent to the Assisted Living Facility. There are no
plans to discontinue the use of or to remove the Sales Facility in the foreseeable future.
Desien of the Assisted Lig inp- Facilitv/Parkine
Attendees were concerned that the buildings are too high and will impact the surrounding community's
views. It was explained that the buildings are one story less than originally submitted and that a 6 ft. wall
as well as landscaping will be used to obscure buildings as well as provide a sound barrier.
Page 2 of 3
HA2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\NIMkNIM Summary 5-23-2017.docx
Concerns were also raised in regards to the location of required backup generators. The generators are
located in a service area at the west side of the Assisted Living Facility, where there is no residential
development adjacent, and are between two buildings to provide sound buffering.
It was asked if there would be street lights. It was explained that street lights will only be located at access
points and intersections, and all lighting will comply with County standards which prohibit light trespass.
Questions were raised in regards to how much parking and the type of parking that will be available. It
was explained that there will be some parking beneath the buildings, some garages, and surface parking.
Stormwater Management
Concerns were raised in regards to stormwater drainage and its affect on the surrounding communities.
Barry Jones and Terry Cole explained that stormwater management would meet all county and state
requirements. Water will drain to an existing canal to the south east which connects to and is contained in
a lake on the adjacent to the Baptist Church to the south. Water will not drain towards Airport Road.
Construction
Attendees were concerned that construction would cause excessive noise and dust. It was explained that
construction noise cannot be entirely removed, but that pile driving will not be used unless necessary to
lay the foundation. [After further review following the NIM, it has been determined that piles will be
required for construction of the site.] Also, construction is limited to Monday — Saturday during the hours
of 6:30a.m.— 7:00p.m. Measures will be taken to prevent dust from leaving the site, such as a fence with
a dust barrier and water trucks.
General/Misc.
General questions were asked in regards to the Assisted Living Facility and amenities. This is Erickson's
first build in Florida and they currently own and operate about 5,000 — 9,000 units in ten states. The
average square footage of the units will be 1,400 sq. ft. and house an average of 1.3 residents per unit.
Construction of the Sales Facility will begin first, and once the required sales percentage is met
construction will begin with the southwest building. Erickson sells all models, but retains ownership of
the units. Erickson estimates a max of 250 employees on-site at any one time. There is a pier located on
one of the lakes for residents' use.
Mr. Mulhere indicated that additional information or new design will be distributed via email to those
who provided their email addresses and is available to the public via the county website.
The meeting concluded at approximately 7:05 PM.
Page 3 of 3
HA2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PD1\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.docx
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 17 —
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO ORDINANCE
NO. 09-65, AS AMENDED, THE SIENA LAKES CCRC CPUD, TO
RETAIN THE EXISTING TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITTED
RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUT REVISING THE RATIO OF PERMITTED
RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
ASSISTED LIVING BEDS AND DECREASING THE NUMBER OF
SKILLED NURSING BEDS AND MEMORY CARE BEDS; AND TO
REVISE THE MASTER PLAN BY CHANGING THE NUMBER OF
BUILDINGS, THE ENTRANCE LOCATION, AND THE SITE, LAKE
AND BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
CONSISTS OF 29.25± ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
ORANGE BLOSSOM ROAD BETWEEN AIRPORT -PULLING ROAD
AND LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PDI-
PL201600031251.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission is authorized by the Board of
County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUD Ordinances in accordance with
Subsection 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed planning
agency for the area hereby affected, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered
the advisability of the requested insubstantial changes to the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD for the
property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in
accordance with Subsection 10.02.13.E.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this
Commission in public meeting assembled and the Commission having considered all matters
presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
[l 7 -CPS -016321135718611] Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD
PDI-PL20160003125
10/24/17 1
Attachment C
Petition No. PDI-PL20160003125 filed by Paula McMichael, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc.
on behalf of ELP Naples, LLC, with respect to the property described in Ordinance No. 09-65, as
amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC Commercial Planned Unit Development, be and the same is
hereby approved to revise the ratio of permitted residential units by increasing the number of
independent living units, increasing the number of assisted living beds, and decreasing the number
of skilled nursing beds and memory care beds; to reduce the maximum height for independent
living unit buildings; and to revise the Master Plan by changing the number of buildings, the
entrance location, and the site, lake and building configurations, as shown on the revised Siena
Lakes CCRC CPUD Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote on the day
of .2017.
ATTEST:
Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head
Growth Management Department
Approved as to form and legality:
10/a -J /,-7
Scott A. Stone
Assistant County Attorney
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Karen Homiak, Vice -Chairman
Attachment: Exhibit A — revised CPUD Master Plan
I/ 7 -CPS -016321135 718611]
PDI-PL20160003125
10/24/17
Siena Lakes CCRC CPDD
2
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A
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 30 355
independent living units and an assisted living facility comprised of 2-9 35 assisted living
beds, and 4-5 30 total skilled nursing beds and -14 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- Development shall be permitted at a combined maximum floor area ratio (FAR)
of 0.60.
A. Principal Uses:
Independent living units (ILU). 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.
Page I of 5
Words underlined are added; words stmek through are deletions.
H:\2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (PD1-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx O
C��
B. Indoor Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities:
1. The following uses shall comprise a minimum of 10.75- of the total neer afea of the
72,000 square feet4:
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.
Page 2 of 5
Words underlined are added; words strdek thr-eugh are deletions.
HA2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (PDI-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx
0
C. Outdoor Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities:
1. 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 trellis; putting greens; courtyard, garden and
landscaping; swimming pool and deck.
D. Miscellaneous Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities:
1. 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.
Page 3 of 5
Words underlined are added; words ...m,.' through are deletions.
H:�2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPDD (PDI-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx o
CAO
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
*ALU -Assisted Living Units (which includes Memory Care Units) ZH = ZONED HEIGHT
SNF -Skilled Nursing Facility AH = ACTUAL HEIGHT
ILU-Independent Living Units
II. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
1. To provide an enhanced buffer, trees shall be installed at less than 25 feet on center (OC)
to allow for clustering to provide a more effective buffer.
Page 4 of 5
Words underlined are added; words stmek thfough are deletions.
HA2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PD1%10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (PD1-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx
NOI
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
ILU
830 sq. ft.
N/A
MINIMUM SETBACKS
3- and 4 -story structures
From south property line
100 feet
60 feet
From west property line
60 feet
45 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 DRIVE
10 feet
0 feet
SETBACKS
from edge ofpavement)
LAKE SETBACKS
20 feet (except where adjacent to
20 feet (except where adjacent
bamdwe& seawall, 0')
to seawall 0'
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
ILU (3 story)
41.5 feet ZH and 48 feet AH
35 feet AH
ILU (4 story includine
53 feet ZH and 60 feet AH
parkin g)
53 feet ZH and 60 feet a H
Commons (up to 2 storyies)
42 feet ZH and 45 feet AH
*ALU -Assisted Living Units (which includes Memory Care Units) ZH = ZONED HEIGHT
SNF -Skilled Nursing Facility AH = ACTUAL HEIGHT
ILU-Independent Living Units
II. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
1. To provide an enhanced buffer, trees shall be installed at less than 25 feet on center (OC)
to allow for clustering to provide a more effective buffer.
Page 4 of 5
Words underlined are added; words stmek thfough are deletions.
HA2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PD1%10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (PD1-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx
NOI
2. The quantity of trees proposed shall be an additional 20% over what is required.
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 C2-a1A-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 time of install, 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 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)
1 -520 -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.
+1677 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.
+721 LF = 30 Trees, 187 Shrubs required
36 Trees, >187 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing
Page 5 of 5
Words underlined are added; words stmek4hrouO are deletions.
HA2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (PD1-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx
C��
~=
~=
-e
LEGEND
AN
1. TM CPAUX MASTUt PLAN IS
CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND IS SUB�
SIENA LAKES PJJLD- MASTER PLAN 4600-1
HOLE WONTEM EXHWT C-1
NoTm
61
ILLUSTRATED EAST ELEVATION 1-1 "•'•• m ••w�.�"`�""�"
�me.s.c
�tm+alr �
i a
' w.slneano
1 � www
���+.swr<m.wrwv
i
-
� awn ••�� � �
rm�s • �_ s ; 1 i
nyr- j I I ue.v i
w
alas
11�3
1
I
_ 1
a ILLUSTRATED SOUTH ELEVATION 33
m SCALL'r. w
� ; � • a ,,,ET a
ID
I 1
a� I
. .' � wow ..+� � owl�.awar en •cr h. .waio.lo
mI 1 s
�[ lers ♦
axu ...moo I i
eow
Al la<rt.jLC �yt2al.� LINE OF SIGiiT
��
MOLE YONI6 wrr EXMWT C-
� wrrr moa �
inl7%ns i 6 s
-..•E.�.. ,_,..,, .ems
ILLUSTRATED ems..., �. _e.... v..,�.e.....so�.,n.,.a.
1 EAST ELEVATION �-t �,�d„q� �•.�..a•.�.a.
SCwl�r-Iv 1�•^K����m `.ar.� � �+oae t/
( • llRf �v��+�f�sr.sy 1
Y•YI� MMS! �1���
w011� dw�Ol
� i 1 � w00YlO�wLltili �� _ �.r�l•� \
-�-1 ���� � QicOlr�fr• Aq� \
1
•5 TT
a�"e1 t 1
®•4 I I _ �i 4 1
aqo ♦ 1
1 Ort 1
•Ip•p>el
NYwYG
ILL TED NORTH ELt`VAnON 2-2
i
w�K wcr�w�e
s�
♦ a-�.••�.e�e
ILLUSTRATED SOUTH ELEVAnON 33 Q��® � •a
1 9G11�T= q
i
i � 1•�e
1 1
m off`
i ♦Ir•c�
i �.Irc �allsiam.l. �� •
1 � 1 owf �It>gl A
! ED
m
oa•e� 1 door \—= �J +�-Z
} S1CIIHC8
ccp
H TIOMS
LANDSCAPE BUFFER ELEVA _ •i_
rowfEs 46oa ]
EYJGI&FT C-3
_ 7AO7 iL5 3 0 5
0
�A
Wks, E.
CARPORTS
)fEl
i
BEGINNING OF
521 - JG WALL
1
LAKE 4
❑3
F
Z
w
w
a OV
w
>�OO
m z
w~� m
O_mC7
5)
ow2
�
II Krrm
1 A YARD BOCCE I SEAWALL v p m Z .-uj G
I t BALL Y SEAWALL B .1 E j3. j
z ~� I - C DEac ILU B '\t m a O a m
KU\(3SIoyOwr P.r ) :\•�♦``♦♦♦ (3 Story Over Parkutp1 ! W
If i 1 - ♦ ` `\ 2 COMMONS B /--- — : Lf O N
yoga(1 story),
\ --
I . 1 11rAWN I I
I 1 E
O a Z PS I' ,. t...fv F GIMAaiSi COURTYARD
W O W K I' l i i l .♦ / `` ` - I!:i 1 CARPORTS
�Ww t I i . ♦� I LJ - r p`� '; �__S�— .� ITNPICALt-
Z Z O A ♦ �GUARDHOU
N
p A ILU
O v \ �♦ `` `` ` (S Story UOver LAKE 1 LAKE 2 (3 SIO1 Over / -_-`�
. '
♦. ` (�;)
p ♦ `` `� `♦ `♦ ♦ �` ♦ `` �v �) 1 / DRAINAGE
T i
' ' ` ♦ ` 6UTFALL PIPE
.I Its --- 3 3 9 — ---- -_
60 61.72 68.13'
PROPOSED
_ ___ 1t __
_
- _
------------ —���_:
--- -- ----------------- ----T----------- ----- --ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE
LEGEND t 1 LONE OAK I WALDEN OAKS ]
g ZONED: P.U.D. (USE: SINGLE FAMILY HOMES) FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
ALU ASSISTED LIVING UNITS ® DEVIATION (SEE EXHIBIT E) P.B. 25, PGS. 84- 87 & P.B. 25, PGS. 88- 89 OF NAPLES
s L.B.E. LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT ® FLAG NOTE / SETBACK (SEE SHEET 2) (ZONED. P.U.D. )
t WATER MANAGEMENT LAKE
ILU INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS COVERED PARKING PARCEL NO. 00236171004
NOTES: O.R. 2193. PG. 2175
SNF SKILLED NURSING FACILITY ® 1 STORY BUILDING
0 ILLUSTRATED ELEVATION EXHIBIT C-3) ® 2 STORY BUILDING O 1. THIS SUBJECT
T MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND IS
t NUMBEN ( SUBJECT TO MINOR DESIGN MODIFICATIONS.
(A> GENERAL CROSS SECTION (EXHIBIT C-4) ® 3 STORY BUILDING e0 ° p 10
3
LETTER(A> SEE EXHIBITS C-2 FOR NOTES AND C-7 FOR LANDSCAPE
0 DENOTES R.O.W. RESERVATION ® 4 STORY BUILDING ( 3 Floors Over Parking) " BUFFER NOTES AND CALCULATIONS AND SIGHT LINES.
YE ua.Y w lJe!
C
Mena �a�e5
OF NAPLES AT CITRUS GARDENS
P.U.D. MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT C-1
v.
'°"'�
5035�1ID
4869-1
FJOF Ytt 1
7L
.oRo
2015.035
WELCOME CENTER
CONDOMINIUMLAKESIDE
USE: MULTI - FAMILY
- r
iMIA=�
I I StDry GARDEN
P.B. 15. PGS. 83-88
O,11
-dil
Pi
_
O Q
I Story Garage (Typical)
21 WALL
CARPORTS
)fEl
i
BEGINNING OF
521 - JG WALL
1
LAKE 4
❑3
F
Z
w
w
a OV
w
>�OO
m z
w~� m
O_mC7
5)
ow2
�
II Krrm
1 A YARD BOCCE I SEAWALL v p m Z .-uj G
I t BALL Y SEAWALL B .1 E j3. j
z ~� I - C DEac ILU B '\t m a O a m
KU\(3SIoyOwr P.r ) :\•�♦``♦♦♦ (3 Story Over Parkutp1 ! W
If i 1 - ♦ ` `\ 2 COMMONS B /--- — : Lf O N
yoga(1 story),
\ --
I . 1 11rAWN I I
I 1 E
O a Z PS I' ,. t...fv F GIMAaiSi COURTYARD
W O W K I' l i i l .♦ / `` ` - I!:i 1 CARPORTS
�Ww t I i . ♦� I LJ - r p`� '; �__S�— .� ITNPICALt-
Z Z O A ♦ �GUARDHOU
N
p A ILU
O v \ �♦ `` `` ` (S Story UOver LAKE 1 LAKE 2 (3 SIO1 Over / -_-`�
. '
♦. ` (�;)
p ♦ `` `� `♦ `♦ ♦ �` ♦ `` �v �) 1 / DRAINAGE
T i
' ' ` ♦ ` 6UTFALL PIPE
.I Its --- 3 3 9 — ---- -_
60 61.72 68.13'
PROPOSED
_ ___ 1t __
_
- _
------------ —���_:
--- -- ----------------- ----T----------- ----- --ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE
LEGEND t 1 LONE OAK I WALDEN OAKS ]
g ZONED: P.U.D. (USE: SINGLE FAMILY HOMES) FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
ALU ASSISTED LIVING UNITS ® DEVIATION (SEE EXHIBIT E) P.B. 25, PGS. 84- 87 & P.B. 25, PGS. 88- 89 OF NAPLES
s L.B.E. LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT ® FLAG NOTE / SETBACK (SEE SHEET 2) (ZONED. P.U.D. )
t WATER MANAGEMENT LAKE
ILU INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS COVERED PARKING PARCEL NO. 00236171004
NOTES: O.R. 2193. PG. 2175
SNF SKILLED NURSING FACILITY ® 1 STORY BUILDING
0 ILLUSTRATED ELEVATION EXHIBIT C-3) ® 2 STORY BUILDING O 1. THIS SUBJECT
T MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND IS
t NUMBEN ( SUBJECT TO MINOR DESIGN MODIFICATIONS.
(A> GENERAL CROSS SECTION (EXHIBIT C-4) ® 3 STORY BUILDING e0 ° p 10
3
LETTER(A> SEE EXHIBITS C-2 FOR NOTES AND C-7 FOR LANDSCAPE
0 DENOTES R.O.W. RESERVATION ® 4 STORY BUILDING ( 3 Floors Over Parking) " BUFFER NOTES AND CALCULATIONS AND SIGHT LINES.
YE ua.Y w lJe!
@0
C
Mena �a�e5
et 0 . Fe[e Wry
IHMW.pNCFLN110
Pt—w1s eMls2000
HOLE MONTES FI°nEeCeNl�uUa
warcrnaJVE salmhws Aumor — No 1772
P.U.D. MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT C-1
v.
'°"'�
5035�1ID
4869-1
FJOF Ytt 1
7L
.oRo
2015.035
sm+a
1 OF 5
vv-,
'+ w>a>
- r
iMIA=�
@0
LAND USE SUMMARY
TOTAL 29.25 ± 100.0% .
x OVERALL OPEN SPACE CALCULATION:
OPEN SPACE + LAKES + AMENITY WALKWAYS !
TOTAL AREA LESS 30' WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
( 10.51 Ac. + 4.85 Ac. + 1.03 Ac.± ) = 16.39 Ac.
16.39 Ac. / (29.25 Ac. - 0.50 Ac.) = 28.75 Ac.
16.39 Ac. 128.75 Ac. = 57.0 %
* NOTE THAT THE OVERALL OPEN SPACE CALCULATION IS
BASED ON THE TOTAL PROJECT AREA LESS THE 30'
WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (0.50Ac) PROVIDED
FOR THE LAKESIDE DEVELOPMENT.
SETBACKS
FRONT ( SOUTH) BUILDING SETBACK = 60 FT.
REAR ( NORTH) BUILDING SETBACK = 80 FT.
SIDE ( EAST) BUILDING SETBACK = 90 FT.
SIDE ( WEST) BUILDING SETBACK = 60 FT.
PARKING STRUCTURE SETBACK = 25 FT. FROM
PROPERTY LINE ( TYPICAL )
PARKING SUMMARY
LIVING UNIT TYPE # UNITS! PARKING PARKING SPACES
BEDS REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED
INDEPENDENT LIVING 355
UNITS (ILU )
ASSISTED LIVING 35
UNITS ( ALU )
p. SKILLED NURSING AND 30
MEMORY CARE
1.01UNIT 355
0.75/ UNIT 27
2 SPACES 15 BEDS 12
TOTAL PARKING SPACES REUUIKtu -
TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED 677
HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER L.D.C. 8
TOTAL HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES PROVIDED 10
FLAG NOTES
O CARPORTS
O2 30' WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
OPEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ENTRANCE
O4 GATED ENTRANCE FOR RESIDENTS. EMPLOYEES AND DELIVERIES.
OS 15' WIDE ENHANCED TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH
6' HIGH WALL.
6O CAR TURN -AROUND
7O THIS PORTION OF THE INGRESS I EGRESS DRIVE, SIDEWALK
AND THE GATE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE LAKESIDE
DEVELOPMENT.
O8 15' WIDE ENHANCED TYPE 'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH
6' HIGH WALL.
O9 20' WIDE ENHANCED TYPE 'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH
6' HIGH WALL.
10 40' RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION ( 1.30 Ac. ± )
11 COMPENSATING RIGHT-OF-WAY ( WIDTH VARIES )
DEVELOPMENT NOTES and STANDARDS
1. A. NO PRESERVE AREA IS SHOWN, NO PRESERVE AREA IS REQUIRED.
B. TO SUPPLEMENT THE PROPOSED BUFFER. AT LEAST 20 EXISTING
PALMS AND NATIVE TREES SHALL BE RELOCATED INTO PROPOSED
BUFFER AREAS TO MEET THE 25% NATIVE VEGETATION
PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INDIGENOUS
TREE AND PALM SURVEY PREPARED BY SOUTHERN BIOMES.
2. 30% OVERALL OPEN SPACE IS REQUIRED
OPEN SPACE INCLUDING LAKES = 57.0%±
3. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ( ZONED) = 53 FEET
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT (ACTUAL) = 60 FEET
4. MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA - 0.60 NOT INCLUDING PARKING
UNDER BUILDINGS
5. TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS = 420 UNITS
355 INDEPENDENT UNITS
35 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS
30 SKILLED NURSING / MEMORY CARE UNITS
® DEVIATIONS - SEE EXHIBIT E
GENERAL NOTES
1. THIS C.P.U. D. MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND IS SUBJECT TO
MINOR DESIGN MODIFICATIONS.
2. SEE EXHIBIT C-3 FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER NOTES AND CALCULATIONS.
b
AREA (Ac.±)
PERCENT
BUILDINGS
7.89 ±
2Z0 % t
ACCESS EASEMENT ROADWAY
0.43±
1.5%±
INTERNAL ROADWAYS I PARKING
4.54 t
15.5 % t
( DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING UNDER BUILDINGS)
wun a
2015.035
SIDEWALKS I WALKWAYS
1.03 ±
3.5 % t
( INCLUDES 1.15 AC. OF AMENITY WALKWAYS)
LAKES
4.85±
16.6%±
OPEN SPACE
10.51 ±
35.9 %±
TOTAL 29.25 ± 100.0% .
x OVERALL OPEN SPACE CALCULATION:
OPEN SPACE + LAKES + AMENITY WALKWAYS !
TOTAL AREA LESS 30' WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
( 10.51 Ac. + 4.85 Ac. + 1.03 Ac.± ) = 16.39 Ac.
16.39 Ac. / (29.25 Ac. - 0.50 Ac.) = 28.75 Ac.
16.39 Ac. 128.75 Ac. = 57.0 %
* NOTE THAT THE OVERALL OPEN SPACE CALCULATION IS
BASED ON THE TOTAL PROJECT AREA LESS THE 30'
WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (0.50Ac) PROVIDED
FOR THE LAKESIDE DEVELOPMENT.
SETBACKS
FRONT ( SOUTH) BUILDING SETBACK = 60 FT.
REAR ( NORTH) BUILDING SETBACK = 80 FT.
SIDE ( EAST) BUILDING SETBACK = 90 FT.
SIDE ( WEST) BUILDING SETBACK = 60 FT.
PARKING STRUCTURE SETBACK = 25 FT. FROM
PROPERTY LINE ( TYPICAL )
PARKING SUMMARY
LIVING UNIT TYPE # UNITS! PARKING PARKING SPACES
BEDS REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED
INDEPENDENT LIVING 355
UNITS (ILU )
ASSISTED LIVING 35
UNITS ( ALU )
p. SKILLED NURSING AND 30
MEMORY CARE
1.01UNIT 355
0.75/ UNIT 27
2 SPACES 15 BEDS 12
TOTAL PARKING SPACES REUUIKtu -
TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED 677
HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER L.D.C. 8
TOTAL HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES PROVIDED 10
FLAG NOTES
O CARPORTS
O2 30' WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
OPEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ENTRANCE
O4 GATED ENTRANCE FOR RESIDENTS. EMPLOYEES AND DELIVERIES.
OS 15' WIDE ENHANCED TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH
6' HIGH WALL.
6O CAR TURN -AROUND
7O THIS PORTION OF THE INGRESS I EGRESS DRIVE, SIDEWALK
AND THE GATE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE LAKESIDE
DEVELOPMENT.
O8 15' WIDE ENHANCED TYPE 'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH
6' HIGH WALL.
O9 20' WIDE ENHANCED TYPE 'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH
6' HIGH WALL.
10 40' RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION ( 1.30 Ac. ± )
11 COMPENSATING RIGHT-OF-WAY ( WIDTH VARIES )
DEVELOPMENT NOTES and STANDARDS
1. A. NO PRESERVE AREA IS SHOWN, NO PRESERVE AREA IS REQUIRED.
B. TO SUPPLEMENT THE PROPOSED BUFFER. AT LEAST 20 EXISTING
PALMS AND NATIVE TREES SHALL BE RELOCATED INTO PROPOSED
BUFFER AREAS TO MEET THE 25% NATIVE VEGETATION
PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INDIGENOUS
TREE AND PALM SURVEY PREPARED BY SOUTHERN BIOMES.
2. 30% OVERALL OPEN SPACE IS REQUIRED
OPEN SPACE INCLUDING LAKES = 57.0%±
3. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ( ZONED) = 53 FEET
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT (ACTUAL) = 60 FEET
4. MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA - 0.60 NOT INCLUDING PARKING
UNDER BUILDINGS
5. TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS = 420 UNITS
355 INDEPENDENT UNITS
35 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS
30 SKILLED NURSING / MEMORY CARE UNITS
® DEVIATIONS - SEE EXHIBIT E
GENERAL NOTES
1. THIS C.P.U. D. MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND IS SUBJECT TO
MINOR DESIGN MODIFICATIONS.
2. SEE EXHIBIT C-3 FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER NOTES AND CALCULATIONS.
b
0�o
.
S i e n a LAC5
a' �6
950 Encore Way
Napes, FL 34110
P ona (239)250-2000
HOLE MONTES Flonea GeN( 1 2
EsS+tar+�nSa.Frt"7�o Auuwnzenon No Inz
P.U.D. MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT C-2
'�
50353u0
4669_2
�� "
11 I
wv®n
r � 0,6
wun a
2015.035
r. b
2 or 5
60
0�o
.
NOTE Nl:
A TYPE'B' BUFFER IS A IF WIDE LANDSCAPE AREA WHICH SHALL INCLUDE
TREES SPACED n O.C. EIGHTY PERCENT (80%) OPACITY SHALL BE ACHIEVED
WITHIN ONE YEAR AND SHALL CONSIST OF: 6 WALL. FENCE, HEDGE, BERM OR
ANY COMBINATION THEREOF HEDGE MATERIAL MUST BE 10 GAL.. AT A
MINIMUM OF 6 HT WITH A T SPREAD PLACED A MAXIMUM OF 41'OZ.
T 3 DRY OVER PARKING
INDEPENDENT
AVERAGE LAVING UNITS
CENTERLINE OF •
ORANGE
BLOSSOM DRIVE
ELEV. 13.51 — -
UNDER BUILDING
PARKING - S
4 7'
CANOPY TREES. PALMS 8 SHRUBS
PROPOSED
PROPERTY LINE
,
3 STORY
±1,672 LF = 418 SHRUBS REQUIRED
CONDOMINIUMS
—_
= 418 SHRUBS PROVIDED
INDEPENDENT
AVERAGE
TYPE'S' BUFFER: ( SOUTH 1
LIVING UNITS
t1,677 LF = 67 TREES REQUIRED (67 X.20 = 14)
CENTERLINE OF
= 61 TREES PROVIDED
OAH TREES AND 15'-20' CT PALMS TO BE
ORANGE
±1,677 LF = 420 SHRUBS REQUIRED
25ON CENTER AN ADDITIONAL 20% OVER
= 420 SHRUBS PROVIDED
BLOSSOM DRIVE
ELEV. 13.52
3 TORY OVER PARKING
TORY
LIVING UNITS
CENTERLINE OF
ORANGE
BLOSSOM DRIVE
ELEV. 13.51 UNDER BUILDING
PARKING
-�_- [:Q
-
ILLUSTRATED EAST ELEVATION 1-1
SCALE: 1' = 10'
O_F_SIG! f TYPE'S' BUFFER
_ 8 6' HIGH WALL I
r DRIVEWAY. PARKING d SIDEWALK ,F 15'—J
30'
CARPORT
NOTE #2, PROPOSED BUFFERS
IN ORDER TO CREATE AN EFFECTIVE LINE OF SIGHT BUFFER, PROPOSED CANOPY TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 16-18' OAH.
INTERSPERSED WITH CABBAGE PALMS AND SLASH PINES FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT THE CABBAGE PALMS WOULD BE
INSTALLED AT STAGGERED HEIGHTS OF 15-20' CT WITH AN ADDITIONAL 10' OF CROWN. THE SLASH PINES WOULD BE
INSTALLED, ALSO STAGGERED, AT HEIGHTS OF 14'-18' OAH. PROPOSED TREE PLANTINGS WOULD BE INSTALLED AT LESS THAN
THE REQUIRED 25' MAXIMUM SPACING ALLOWING FOR CLUSTERING OF THE CABBAGE PALMS AND SLASH PINES AND
RESULTING IN QUANTITIES WHICH EXCEED THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENT. PLANTINGS WILL OCCUR ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE WALLS WITH REQUIRED PLANTINGS BEING INSTALLED ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THE WALLS. IN THE END. THIS WOULD
CREATE A STAGGERED.'GREEN WALL' TO EFFECTIVELY SCREEN THE APPROXIMATELY 65' TALL BUILDINGS. WHERE POSSIBLE.
EXISTING SPECIES IDENTIFIED ON THE TREE SURVEY SHALL BE RELOCATED ON-SITE. NATIVE SPECIES WILL BE RELOCATED
PRIMARILY TO THE BUFFERS WHILE NONNATIVE SPECIES WOULD ONLY BE RELOCATED ELSEWHERE.
BUFFER PLANTING -
CANOPY TREES. PALMS 8 SHRUBS
BRDG'EWATER BAY
PROPERTY LINE
,
TWO STORY
±1,672 LF = 418 SHRUBS REQUIRED
CONDOMINIUMS
—_
= 418 SHRUBS PROVIDED
4
ILLUSTRATED NORTH ELEVATION 2-2
SCALE: I'= 10'
TYPE'S' BUFFER
66' HIGH WALL.
30 OAH
GARAGE
-�.
ONE STORY j
_ 1 1 GARAGE I
`EXISTING -- -
HEDGE TYPE W BUFFER: ( EAST )
*728 LF = 30 TREES REQUIRED (30 x.20 = 6) TYPE'S' BUFFER SHALL CONSIST OF 14'-18'
= 36 TREES PROVIDED OAH TREES AND 15'-20' CT PALMS TO BE
PROVIDED AT LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 2F
LINE 1728 LF = 187 SHRUBS REQUIRED ON CENTER. AN ADDITIONAL 20% OVER
= 187 SHRUBS PROVIDED TREE CODE REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN
PROVIDED.
_EXISTING EXISTING
BUFFER ROADWAY
f -- LINE OF S_IG_H7 1' TWO STORY
- — -- I CONDOMINIUMS
EXISTING ` LAKESDE
" BUFFER
�----------J,'------
_ I 1
I I
PROPOSED EXISTING 6'
PLANTING C.L. FENCE
ILLUSTRATED SOUTH ELEVATION 3-3
SCALE: 1' = 1 O'
e — UIyE � SIGHT
TYPE'B' PROPERTY LINE
BUFFER
_20' 40' ROAD RESERVATION
TYPE'S' BUFFER: ( NORTH)
21,672 LF = 67 TREES REQUIRED (67 X.20 = 14)
TYPE 'B' BUFFER SHALL CONSIST OF 14'-18'
= 81 TREES PROVIDED
OAH TREES AND 16-20' CT PALMS TO BE
PROVIDED AT LESS THAN THE REQUIRED
±1,672 LF = 418 SHRUBS REQUIRED
25' ON CENTER. AN ADDITIONAL 20% OVER
= 418 SHRUBS PROVIDED
TREE CODE REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN
PROVIDED.
TYPE'S' BUFFER: ( SOUTH 1
t1,677 LF = 67 TREES REQUIRED (67 X.20 = 14)
TYPE T3' BUFFER SHALL CONSIST OF 14'-16
= 61 TREES PROVIDED
OAH TREES AND 15'-20' CT PALMS TO BE
PROVIDED AT LESS THAN THE REQUIRED
±1,677 LF = 420 SHRUBS REQUIRED
25ON CENTER AN ADDITIONAL 20% OVER
= 420 SHRUBS PROVIDED
TREE CODE REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN
30' OAH r ORANGE BLOSSOM DFL ,, WALDEN OAKS
- EXISTING 60'tRAW -15't '
LAAyEOFSIghT„ `? ,
t ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES I
1
�__------ ----------------------
® J
_—_---_--_-- ...icef'__�__%�y......-_�__
PROPOSED4 EXISTING
PLANTING V HIGH WALL
o"FI°`"W" LINE OF SIGHT / �p
(, w r a wi N250 EFL 312 to '� ®a " 5015�UFF6i 4869- 3
ij iena La�CeS Ph—(2"12%2W0 LANDSCAPE BUFFER 712
°� .�. w I I HOLE MONTES F$W," CaNxoM d
_.- 0ppy5 Awnonrm�Nomx EXHIBIT C-3 — 2015.035 3- 5
A
e
3
INDEPENDENT
LIVING UNITS
MAXIMUM ZONED
BUILDING HEIGHT
53.0' PROPOSED
BUILDING
MAXIMUM ACTUAL FINISHED FLOOR
BUILDING HEIGHT (1st FLOOR)
60.1y ELEV = 26.002
MINIMUM FINISHED
FLOOR OF LOBBY
AT PARKING LEVEL
ELEV.= 14.02
MINIMUM UNDER -BUILDING
PARKING
ELEV.= 13.02 (MAX.)
COMMONS
VARIES
MINIMUM (20' PAN,
PROPOSED BUILDING
FINISHED FLOOR
(1st FLOOR)
ELEV.= 14-02
SECTION C -C
N.T.S.
6' WIDE
SIDEWALK
METAL HANDRAIL
EIEV.= 13.02
WATER CONTROL Z
ELEV.= 10.0 Y
RETAINING WALL —•
( TYPICAL )
ELEV.= 5.
SLOPE BREAK I
J1
2
DRIVEWAY AND
PARKING
( VARIES )
ELEV= 13.62
TYPICAL MINIMUM
ROADWAY
ELEV.= 13.02
SECTION A -A
N.T.S.
VARIES
15' MIN.
6' HIGI
ELEV.= 13.5 t
WATER CONTROL
_o ELEV.• 10.0
�—RETAINING WALL
( TYPICAL) ELEV.- 5.0
10'
1� SLOPE BREAK 20'LAKE
4 ELEV.= 0.0 DEPTH
1 L
2
LAKE BOTTOM
ELEV.= (-) 10.0
WATER CONTROL
ELEV.= 10.0
NORMAL WET SEASON
WATER LEVEL
4
SLOPE BREAK
VILLA
EASEMENT
MINIMUM
VARIES
PROPOSED
( 20' MIN.)
40• 20'
BUILDING
BUFFER
AND TEMPORARY
PARKING
24'ACCESS
FINISHED FLOOR
(VARIES)
ROADWAY
1S EASEMENT
(1st FLOOR)
13'
ELEV.= 14.02
WATER CONTROL
I
ELEV.= 10.0
7
4
WIDTH
\ TYPICAL MINIMUM ROADWAY
SECTION B -B
VARIES
ELEV. 10.02
j
VT
MIN.
TOP OF
LAKE BANK
PER CODE
N.T.S.
SLOPE BREAK
I
7.0 TO 8.0
DRY SEASON
R LEVEL
10 IN.
PER CODE
20' LAKE
DEPTH
,L
2 10
LACE BOTTOM
ELEV.= (-) 10.0
INDEPENDENT
LIVING UNITS
VARIES
MINIMUM
UNDER -BUILDING
PARKING
FINISHED FLOOR
ELEV .=1 .
6' WIDE
SIDEWALK
ELEV.= 13.02
WATER CONTROL
-- — --
ELEV.= 10.0
RETAINING WALL
"- - - — ( TYPICAL )
ELEV.= 5.0
SECTION E -E SLOPEBREAK
- - - 4ELEV= 0.0
N.T.S.
1L
2
mow. P.�. Ertl t6 Hm
iena LAcs0i
=.t. dl7 1s HOLE MONTES
_ -.. EKr.EE6•'JNFA�6F.Er�'t:
1 20' LAKE
L DEPTH
1
2 I 10
LAKE7=(
BOTTOM
ELEV= (-)10.1\11
+
30' PUBLIC ACCESS
EASEMENT
PROPERTY LINE
ANO ROADWAY
15' LANDSCAPE
FILL EASEMENT
DRIVEWAY AND
BUFFER
AND TEMPORARY
PARKING
24'ACCESS
CONSTRUCTION
(VARIES)
ROADWAY
1S EASEMENT
13'
8' HIGH
FWD
WALL
7
WIDTH
\ TYPICAL MINIMUM ROADWAY
VARIES
ELEV. 10.02
ELEV.= 13.02
EXISTING
SECTION F -F
TOP OF
LAKE BANK
N.T.S
NOTE:
F.E.MA. FLOOD ELEVATION IS *ZONE X
PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (F.I.R.M.) 12021CO385G.
DATED: NOVEMBER 17, 2005
ZONE X IS DEFINED AS, AREAS OF 500 -YEAR FLOOD;
AREAS OF 10D -YEAR FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN
1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SOUARE MILE; AND
AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 100 -YEAR FLOOD.
950 Encore Wry oe.a.e ow.nu
N�pn. FL. 34110CROSS SECTIONS and DETAILS .uw..�.,�-1 4889
Ph— (239)254-i0W
F1ontliCa1f 1°a EXHIBIT C-4 7.p
Aug. 0 -No 1m �. 2015.035 4 of 5
i
Z
Y
------- -------- C1
o❑
Key Map of Site Amenities
Nl7Rin INDFPENDEM GARACt : .'
Sena LaL5
_�(NTRA(t4Nt ANO GOAI AtiiNS A4�
? WELLNESS CEMER AND �OMMi)\5 ARF
JAKE PW ION AND POI1NTAIN
950 E— Wry ouw Dim Yn Darla .n
Dim NaPlft- 3WO SITE AMENITIES "�" CS AMEN 4869-5
Ph— (239)254-2000
HOLE MONTES FW4. aura:n.of EXHIBIT C-5 --- """"° —7
1-W �ws A�mon:,uo� No.1n2 �--- 2015.035 5 or 5
Ci0 eY C -944--Lt;y
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Date: October 27, 2017
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-PL-2017-0524
PETITION NAME: Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development Rev. 3
REQUEST: To amend the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved via Ordinance #92-
75 (as amended by Ordinance #09-67), to allow temporary (for a maximum of a 5 -year duration) principal uses for off-
site sales, marketing, and administration facility on the subject site to serve the adjoining Siena Lakes CPUD, and
development standards for this facility. The Orange Blossom PUD will continue to allow the 20 multi -family dwelling
units previously approved as well. Submittal 3 included a revised Master Plan and they are requesting two deviations
for buffers and landscaping.
LOCATION: The ±5.85 -acre subject site is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive, approximately ±690
feet east of Airport Pulling Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. It is bordered on the west side by
St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church and the northern portion of Longview PUD (currently undeveloped), on the east
side by Siena Lakes PUD, and on the north side by Citrus Gardens PUD (aka Lakeside).
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed -Use District,
Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This District
is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments.
Within this designation, and in accordance with the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), a
base density of four (4) units per acre is allowed. The Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (via Ordinance #09-67) was
approved for a maximum of 20 dwelling units which is a density of 3.42 DU/A (20 DUs / 5.85 acres = 3.42 DU/A).
This petition is a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) to add a temporary off-site sales, marketing, and
administration facility on the subject site to serve the adjacent Siena Lakes PUD and development standards for this
facility. As the Urban Residential Subdistrict does not provide for commercial zoning at this location, the proposed uses
may be deemed consistent with the FLUE only if they are determined by Zoning Services Section not to be commercial
uses.
Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis [in bold]
FLUE Policy 5.4:
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Attachment A Pagel of 2
New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land
Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).
[Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in
its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.]
FLUE 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. [Orange Blossom Gardens PUD Master Plan Exhibit `A' depicts the
subject site fronting on Orange Blossom Drive, a minor collector shown on "Collier 2025 Functional Classification
Map" in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. The Master Plan shows a public access
easement extending north off Orange Blossom Drive and running northward along the eastern boundary of
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and the western boundary of the adjoining Siena Lakes CPUD. This access road
will serve as the ingress/egress for the PUD. Orange Blossom Drive connects with two principal arterials: Airport
Pulling Road to the west and Livingston Road to the east.]
FLUE 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. [No site or Master Plan
showing the site circulation plans has been submitted.]
FLUE 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. [A
`Potential Future Access' is shown on Exhibit `A,' the proposed Orange Blossom Gardens PUD Master Plan,
connecting the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to St. Katherine's Greek Church, which is adjacent to the northern
half of the western boundary of the PUD. The Orange Blossom Gardens Master Plan shows only a 15 -foot buffer
along the southern half of the western boundary between the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and Longview
Center PUD with no connection to Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. The Orange Blossom PUD Master Plan shows
a connection to a 30 -foot wide public access road, which runs northward from Orange Blossom Drive along the
entire length of the eastern boundary of the PUD. This public access road will serve as the access from the PUD
to Orange Blossom Drive. Siena Lakes CPUD also connects to the same public access roadway from the eastern
side of the road; however, their Master Plan includes notations for `gated service and employee entrance' and
`pedestrian and bicycle entrance;' therefore, it does appear that there will be a connection from Siena Lakes
CPUD to the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. The public access easement is shown on Exhibit `A' Master Plan
running along the eastern boundary of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and is intended to connect to Citrus
Lake Drive and the Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens PUD to the north.]
FLUE 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 proposed Orange
Blossom Gardens Master Plan does not show any sidewalks; however, there is no request for a sidewalk deviation
and therefore, sidewalks should be provided in accordance with the Land Development Code. No new housing is
being proposed with this petition. Open spaces, civic facilities, and housing were approved with the previous
Ordinance #09-67.
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PDI may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element -
so long as the proposed uses are determined by Zoning Services Section not to be commercial uses.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Ray Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section
PUDA-PL2017-0524 Orange Blossom Gardens R3.docx
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 2 of 2
s
Co e -r Coin-i.ty
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Date: October 27, 2017
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-PL-2017-0524
PETITION NAME: Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development Rev. 3
REQUEST: To amend the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved via Ordinance #92-
75 (as amended by Ordinance #09-67), to allow temporary (for a maximum of a 5 -year duration) principal uses for off-
site sales, marketing, and administration facility on the subject site to serve the adjoining Siena Lakes CPUD, and
development standards for this facility. The Orange Blossom PUD will continue to allow the 20 multi -family dwelling
units previously approved as well. Submittal 3 included a revised Master Plan and they are requesting two deviations
for buffers and landscaping.
LOCATION: The ±5.85 -acre subject site is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive, approximately ±690
feet east of Airport Pulling Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. It is bordered on the west side by
St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church and the northern portion of Longview PUD (currently undeveloped), on the east
side by Siena Lakes PUD, and on the north side by Citrus Gardens PUD (aka Lakeside).
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed -Use District,
Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This District
is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments.
Within this designation, and in accordance with the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), a
base density of four (4) units per acre is allowed. The Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (via Ordinance #09-67) was
approved for a maximum of 20 dwelling units which is a density of 3.42 DU/A (20 DUs / 5.85 acres = 3.42 DU/A).
This petition is a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) to add a temporary off-site sales, marketing, and
administration facility on the subject site to serve the adjacent Siena Lakes PUD and development standards for this
facility. As the Urban Residential Subdistrict does not provide for commercial zoning at this location, the proposed uses
may be deemed consistent with the FLUE only if they are determined by Zoning Services Section not to be commercial
uses.
Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis [in bold].
FLUE Policy 5.4:
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Fl, 34104 Page 1 of 2
New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land
Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).
[Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in
its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.]
FLUE 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. [Orange Blossom Gardens PUD Master Plan Exhibit `A' depicts the
subject site fronting on Orange Blossom Drive, a minor collector shown on "Collier 2025 Functional Classification
Map" in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. The Master Plan shows a public access
easement extending north off Orange Blossom Drive and running northward along the eastern boundary of
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and the western boundary of the adjoining Siena Lakes CPUD. This access road
will serve as the ingress/egress for the PUD. Orange Blossom Drive connects with two principal arterials: Airport
Pulling Road to the west and Livingston Road to the east.]
FLUE 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. [No site or Master Plan
showing the site circulation plans has been submitted.]
FLUE 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. [A
`Potential Future Access' is shown on Exhibit `A,' the proposed Orange Blossom Gardens PUD Master Plan,
connecting the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to St. Katherine's Greek Church, which is adjacent to the northern
half of the western boundary of the PUD. The Orange Blossom Gardens Master Plan shows only a 15 -foot buffer
along the southern half of the western boundary between the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and Longview
Center PUD with no connection to Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. The Orange Blossom PUD Master Plan shows
a connection to a 30 -foot wide public access road, which runs northward from Orange Blossom Drive along the
entire length of the eastern boundary of the PUD. This public access road will serve as the access from the PUD
to Orange Blossom Drive. Siena Lakes CPUD also connects to the same public access roadway from the eastern
side of the road; however, their Master Plan includes notations for `gated service and employee entrance' and
`pedestrian and bicycle entrance;' therefore, it does appear that there will be a connection from Siena Lakes
CPUD to the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. The public access easement is shown on Exhibit `A' Master Plan
running along the eastern boundary of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and is intended to connect to Citrus
Lake Drive and the Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens PUD to the north.]
FLUE 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 proposed Orange
Blossom Gardens Master Plan does not show any sidewalks; however, there is no request for a sidewalk deviation
and therefore, sidewalks should be provided in accordance with the Land Development Code. No new housing is
being proposed with this petition. Open spaces, civic facilities, and housing were approved with the previous
Ordinance #09-67.
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PDI may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element -
so long as the proposed uses are determined by Zoning Services Section not to be commercial uses.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Ray Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section
PUDA-PL2017-0524 Orange Blossom Gardens R3.docx
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 2 of 2
NIM Summary
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (PDI -PL -20160003125)
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (PUDA-PL-20170000524)
May 23, 2017, 5:30 p.m.
Collier County Public Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater
2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida 34109
The NIM was held for the above referenced petitions submitted b Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice
President, Planning Services and Business Development of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A on behalf of Erickson Living. The petitions
are described as follows:
(1) An Insubstantial Change to Ordinance No. 09-65, as amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to
retain the existing total number of permitted residential units but revising the ratio of permitted
residential units by increasing the number of independent living units, increasing the number of
assisted living beds and decreasing the number of skilled nursing beds and memory care beds; to
reduce the maximum number of stories for independent living unit buildings from five to four;
and to revise the Master Plan by changing the number of buildings, the entrance location, and the
site, lake and building configuration. The subject property consists of 29.25± acres, located on the
north side of Orange Blossom Road between Airport -Pulling Road and Livingston Road, in
Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Sienna Lakes PUD is
owned by Erickson Living (ELP Naples, LLC), who is the applicant for this petition.
(2) An Amendment to Ordinance No. 09-67, as amended, the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, to
allow for an off-site sales, marketing, and administration facility on the subject site, and to revise
the PUD Master Plan, land uses, and development standards to accompany the request. The
subject property consists of 5.85 acres and is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive,
east of the intersection of Airport Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section I,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Orange Blossom Gardens PUD is
owned by St Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, who is the applicant for this petition
(working with Erickson Living).
Note: This is a summary of the NIM. A recording is also provided.
Attendees:
On behalf of Applicants:
Steve Montgomery, Vice President of Development, Erickson Living
David P. Archibald, Vice President of Development, Erickson Living
Rev. Fr. Philemon Patitsas, St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church
Richard Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester
Bob Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes
Terry Cole, P.E., Vice President, Hole Montes
Barry Jones, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Hole Montes
Paula McMichael, AICP, Director of Planning, Hole Montes
Jeremie Chastain, Planner, Hole Montes
County Staff: Nancy Gundlach, RLA, AICP, Principal Planner Collier County
Approximately 40 members of the public attended.
Page I of 3
11 \2015\2015035 - S1.\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017 docz
Attachment B
Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. Mr.
Montgomery then introduced himself and Mr. Archibald. He spoke about Erickson Living, including an
overview of the company and this project. Mr. Mulhere explained the NIM process, the process for
approval and provided an overview of the project. He then went over the proposed changes to both
Sienna Lakes (through the PDI) and Orange Blossom Gardens (through the PUDA).
Following Mr. Mulhere's presentation, there was approximately one hour of questions from the public in
attendance. The members of the public who attended identified themselves as residents of Lakeside of
Naples to the north, Bridgewater Bay to the east, and Walden Oaks to the south. The following issues
were raised:
Existine Traffic Concerns/Provosed Access Road
Several questions were raised in regards to the proposed access road along the west of the Siena Lakes
CPUD. Increased traffic, large delivery trucks, and access to Lakeside were of concern.
It was explained that the access road will be paved to the property line, but will not be connected to
Lakeside unless they want it to. There will be an easement in place if they decide to do so. The gate will
be installed and paid for by Erickson with an easement from Lakeside. Through traffic into Lakeside will
only be available to Lakeside residents. The access road will have a sidewalk and will be pedestrian
friendly. Mr. Montgomery estimated 2 to 3 deliveries per week once construction has been completed via
the proposed access road. He also explained that traffic due to residents of the proposed living facility
along the access road will be minimal, as the main entrance is via Orange Blossom on the south side and
there is shuttle, bus, and chauffeur services offered. Mr. Mulhere explained that the project as proposed
by these two petitions would not increase trips from what is already approved in both PUDs, and that any
other reasonable assumed use of this land would likely be residential development which would have a
higher trip generation than the CCRC.
Concerns were also raised in regards to existing traffic, speed of travel, and the future widening of Orange
Blossom. It was explained that the County is in the process of obtaining ROW (right-of-way) to expand
Orange Blossom Dr. as well as make improvements to the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport,
but that those improvements were not in the County's five year plan. Also, residents were encouraged to
contact the county in regards to the speed and amount of traffic currently on Orange Blossom Dr.
Walden Oaks residents were concerned re: the widening of Orange Blossom Drive, as they felt prior
construction caused stormwater to drain onto the properties adjacent. It was explained that future
widening will be on the north side away from Walden Oaks and will not affect them.
Desien of the Sales Facility
Attendees asked what the Sales Facility will look like and whether it will be permanent. The Sales
Facility is a permanent structure with architecture consistent to the Assisted Living Facility. There are no
plans to discontinue the use of or to remove the Sales Facility in the foreseeable future.
Desi(in of the Assisted Livine Facility/Parkine
Attendees were concerned that the buildings are too high and will impact the surrounding community's
views. It was explained that the buildings are one story less than originally submitted and that a 6 ft. wall
as well as landscaping will be used to obscure buildings as well as provide a sound barrier.
Page 2 of 3
HA2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.da:x
Concerns were also raised in regards to the location of required backup generators. The generators are
located in a service area at the west side of the Assisted Living Facility, where there is no residential
development adjacent, and are between two buildings to provide sound buffering.
It was asked if there would be street lights. It was explained that street lights will only be located at access
points and intersections, and all lighting will comply with County standards which prohibit light trespass.
Questions were raised in regards to how much parking and the type of parking that will be available. It
was explained that there will be some parking beneath the buildings, some garages, and surface parking.
Stormwater Management
Concerns were raised in regards to stormwater drainage and its affect on the surrounding communities.
Barry Jones and Terry Cole explained that stormwater management would meet all county and state
requirements. Water will drain to an existing canal to the south east which connects to and is contained in
a lake on the adjacent to the Baptist Church to the south. Water will not drain towards Airport Road.
Construction
Attendees were concerned that construction would cause excessive noise and dust. It was explained that
construction noise cannot be entirely removed, but that pile driving will not be used unless necessary to
lay the foundation. [After further review following the NIM, it has been determined that piles will be
required for construction of the site.] Also, construction is limited to Monday — Saturday during the hours
of 6:30a.m.— 7:00p.m. Measures will be taken to prevent dust from leaving the site, such as a fence with
a dust barrier and water trucks.
General/Misc.
General questions were asked in regards to the Assisted Living Facility and amenities. This is Erickson's
first build in Florida and they currently own and operate about 8,000 — 9,000 units in ten states. The
average square footage of the units will be 1,400 sq. ft. and house an average of 1.3 residents per unit.
Construction of the Sales Facility will begin first, and once the required sales percentage is met
construction will begin with the southwest building. Erickson sells all models, but retains ownership of
the units. Erickson estimates a max of 250 employees on-site at any one time. There is a pier located on
one of the lakes for residents' use.
Mr. Mulhere indicated that additional information or new design will be distributed via email to those
who provided their email addresses and is available to the public via the county website.
The meeting concluded at approximately 7:05 PM.
Page 3 of 3
11:\2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.docx
NIM Summary
Siena Lakes CCRC CPDD (PDI -PL -20160003125)
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (PUDA-PL-20170000524)
May 23, 2017, 5:30 p.m.
Collier County Public Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater
2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida 34109
The NIM was held for the above referenced petitions submitted b Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice
President, Planning Services and Business Development of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A on behalf of Erickson Living. The petitions
are described as follows:
(1) An Insubstantial Change to Ordinance No. 09-65, as amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to
retain the existing total number of permitted residential units but revising the ratio of permitted
residential units by increasing the number of independent living units, increasing the number of
assisted living beds and decreasing the number of skilled nursing beds and memory care beds; to
reduce the maximum number of stories for independent living unit buildings from five to four:
and to revise the Master Plan by changing the number of buildings, the entrance location, and the
site, lake and building configuration. The subject property consists of 29.25± acres, located on the
north side of Orange Blossom Road between Airport -Pulling Road and Livingston Road, in
Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Sienna Lakes PUD is
owned by Erickson Living (ELP Naples, LLC), who is the applicant for this petition.
(2) An Amendment to Ordinance No. 09-67, as amended, the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, to
allow for an off-site sales, marketing, and administration facility on the subject site, and to revise
the PUD Master Plan, land uses, and development standards to accompany the request. The
subject property consists of 5.85 acres and is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive,
east of the intersection of Airport Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 1,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Orange Blossom Gardens PUD is
owned by St Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, who is the applicant for this petition
(working with Erickson Living).
Note: This is a summary of the NIM. A recording is also provided.
Attendees:
On behalf of Applicants:
Steve Montgomery, Vice President of Development, Erickson Living
David P. Archibald, Vice President of Development, Erickson Living
Rev. Fr. Philemon Patitsas, St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church
Richard Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester
Bob Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes
Terry Cole, P.E., Vice President, Hole Montes
Barry Jones, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Hole Montes
Paula McMichael, AICP, Director of Planning, Hole Montes
Jeremie Chastain, Planner, Hole Montes
County Staff: Nancy Gundlach, RLA, AICP, Principal Planner Collier County
Approximately 40 members of the public attended.
Page 1 of 3
11:\2015\2015035 - SL.\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.docx
Attachment B
Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. Mr.
Montgomery then introduced himself and Mr. Archibald. He spoke about Erickson Living, including an
overview of the company and this project. Mr. Mulhere explained the NIM process, the process for
approval and provided an overview of the project. He then went over the proposed changes to both
Sienna Lakes (through the PDI) and Orange Blossom Gardens (through the PUDA).
Following Mr. Mulhere's presentation, there was approximately one hour of questions from the public in
attendance. The members of the public who attended identified themselves as residents of Lakeside of
Naples to the north, Bridgewater Bay to the east, and Walden Oaks to the south. The following issues
were raised:
Existine Traffic Concerns/Pronosed Access Road
Several questions were raised in regards to the proposed access road along the west of the Siena Lakes
CPUD. Increased traffic, large delivery trucks, and access to Lakeside were of concern.
It was explained that the access road will be paved to the property line, but will not be connected to
Lakeside unless they want it to. There will be an easement in place if they decide to do so. The gate will
be installed and paid for by Erickson with an easement from Lakeside. Through traffic into Lakeside will
only be available to Lakeside residents. The access road will have a sidewalk and will be pedestrian
friendly. Mr. Montgomery estimated 2 to 3 deliveries per week once construction has been completed via
the proposed access road. He also explained that traffic due to residents of the proposed living facility
along the access road will be minimal, as the main entrance is via Orange Blossom on the south side and
there is shuttle, bus, and chauffeur services offered. Mr. Mulhere explained that the project as proposed
by these two petitions would not increase trips from what is already approved in both PUDs, and that any
other reasonable assumed use of this land would likely be residential development which would have a
higher trip generation than the CCRC.
Concerns were also raised in regards to existing traffic, speed of travel, and the future widening of Orange
Blossom. It was explained that the County is in the process of obtaining ROW (right-of-way) to expand
Orange Blossom Dr. as well as make improvements to the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport,
but that those improvements were not in the County's five year plan. Also, residents were encouraged to
contact the county in regards to the speed and amount of traffic currently on Orange Blossom Dr.
Walden Oaks residents were concerned re: the widening of Orange Blossom Drive, as they felt prior
construction caused stormwater to drain onto the properties adjacent. It was explained that future
widening will be on the north side away from Walden Oaks and will not affect them.
Ucsii!n of the Sales Facility
Attendees asked what the Sales Facility will look like and whether it will be permanent. The Sales
Facility is a permanent structure with architecture consistent to the Assisted Living Facility. There are no
plans to discontinue the use of or to remove the Sales Facility in the foreseeable future.
1)esi(rn of the Assisted Living Facility/Parkine
Attendees were concerned that the buildings are too high and will impact the surrounding community's
views. It was explained that the buildings are one story less than originally submitted and that a 6 ft. wall
as well as landscaping will be used to obscure buildings as well as provide a sound barrier.
Page 2 of 3
HA2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.doex
Concerns were also raised in regards to the location of required backup generators. The generators are
located in a service area at the west side of the Assisted Living Facility, where there is no residential
development adjacent, and are between two buildings to provide sound buffering.
It was asked if there would be street lights. It was explained that street lights will only be located at access
points and intersections, and all lighting will comply with County standards which prohibit light trespass.
Questions were raised in regards to how much parking and the type of parking that will be available. It
was explained that there will be some parking beneath the buildings, some garages, and surface parking.
Stormwater Management
Concerns were raised in regards to stormwater drainage and its affect on the surrounding communities.
Barry Jones and Terry Cole explained that stormwater management would meet all county and state
requirements. Water will drain to an existing canal to the south east which connects to and is contained in
a lake on the adjacent to the Baptist Church to the south. Water will not drain towards Airport Road.
Construction
Attendees were concerned that construction would cause excessive noise and dust. It was explained that
construction noise cannot be entirely removed, but that pile driving will not be used unless necessary to
lay the foundation. [After further review following the NIM, it has been determined that piles will be
required for construction of the site.] Also, construction is limited to Monday — Saturday during the hours
of 6:30a.m.— 7:00p.m. Measures will be taken to prevent dust from leaving the site, such as a fence with
a dust barrier and water trucks.
General/Misc.
General questions were asked in regards to the Assisted Living Facility and amenities. This is Erickson's
first build in Florida and they currently own and operate about 8,000 — 9,000 units in ten states. The
average square footage of the units will be 1,400 sq. ft. and house an average of 1.3 residents per unit.
Construction of the Sales Facility will begin first, and once the required sales percentage is met
construction will begin with the southwest building. Erickson sells all models, but retains ownership of
the units. Erickson estimates a max of 250 employees on-site at any one time. There is a pier located on
one of the lakes for residents' use.
Mr. Mulhere indicated that additional information or new design will be distributed via email to those
who provided their email addresses and is available to the public via the county website.
The meeting concluded at approzirnately 7:05 PM
Page 3 of 3
11:\2015\2015035 - SL\WP%PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.docx
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
Ci0 eY C -944--Lt;y
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Date: October 27, 2017
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-PL-2017-0524
PETITION NAME: Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development Rev. 3
REQUEST: To amend the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved via Ordinance #92-
75 (as amended by Ordinance #09-67), to allow temporary (for a maximum of a 5 -year duration) principal uses for off-
site sales, marketing, and administration facility on the subject site to serve the adjoining Siena Lakes CPUD, and
development standards for this facility. The Orange Blossom PUD will continue to allow the 20 multi -family dwelling
units previously approved as well. Submittal 3 included a revised Master Plan and they are requesting two deviations
for buffers and landscaping.
LOCATION: The ±5.85 -acre subject site is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive, approximately ±690
feet east of Airport Pulling Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. It is bordered on the west side by
St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church and the northern portion of Longview PUD (currently undeveloped), on the east
side by Siena Lakes PUD, and on the north side by Citrus Gardens PUD (aka Lakeside).
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed -Use District,
Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This District
is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments.
Within this designation, and in accordance with the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), a
base density of four (4) units per acre is allowed. The Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (via Ordinance #09-67) was
approved for a maximum of 20 dwelling units which is a density of 3.42 DU/A (20 DUs / 5.85 acres = 3.42 DU/A).
This petition is a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) to add a temporary off-site sales, marketing, and
administration facility on the subject site to serve the adjacent Siena Lakes PUD and development standards for this
facility. As the Urban Residential Subdistrict does not provide for commercial zoning at this location, the proposed uses
may be deemed consistent with the FLUE only if they are determined by Zoning Services Section not to be commercial
uses.
Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis [in bold]
FLUE Policy 5.4:
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Attachment A Pagel of 2
New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land
Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).
[Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in
its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.]
FLUE 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. [Orange Blossom Gardens PUD Master Plan Exhibit `A' depicts the
subject site fronting on Orange Blossom Drive, a minor collector shown on "Collier 2025 Functional Classification
Map" in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. The Master Plan shows a public access
easement extending north off Orange Blossom Drive and running northward along the eastern boundary of
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and the western boundary of the adjoining Siena Lakes CPUD. This access road
will serve as the ingress/egress for the PUD. Orange Blossom Drive connects with two principal arterials: Airport
Pulling Road to the west and Livingston Road to the east.]
FLUE 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. [No site or Master Plan
showing the site circulation plans has been submitted.]
FLUE 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. [A
`Potential Future Access' is shown on Exhibit `A,' the proposed Orange Blossom Gardens PUD Master Plan,
connecting the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to St. Katherine's Greek Church, which is adjacent to the northern
half of the western boundary of the PUD. The Orange Blossom Gardens Master Plan shows only a 15 -foot buffer
along the southern half of the western boundary between the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and Longview
Center PUD with no connection to Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. The Orange Blossom PUD Master Plan shows
a connection to a 30 -foot wide public access road, which runs northward from Orange Blossom Drive along the
entire length of the eastern boundary of the PUD. This public access road will serve as the access from the PUD
to Orange Blossom Drive. Siena Lakes CPUD also connects to the same public access roadway from the eastern
side of the road; however, their Master Plan includes notations for `gated service and employee entrance' and
`pedestrian and bicycle entrance;' therefore, it does appear that there will be a connection from Siena Lakes
CPUD to the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. The public access easement is shown on Exhibit `A' Master Plan
running along the eastern boundary of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and is intended to connect to Citrus
Lake Drive and the Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens PUD to the north.]
FLUE 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 proposed Orange
Blossom Gardens Master Plan does not show any sidewalks; however, there is no request for a sidewalk deviation
and therefore, sidewalks should be provided in accordance with the Land Development Code. No new housing is
being proposed with this petition. Open spaces, civic facilities, and housing were approved with the previous
Ordinance #09-67.
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PDI may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element -
so long as the proposed uses are determined by Zoning Services Section not to be commercial uses.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Ray Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section
PUDA-PL2017-0524 Orange Blossom Gardens R3.docx
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 2 of 2
s
Co e -r Coin-i.ty
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Date: October 27, 2017
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-PL-2017-0524
PETITION NAME: Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development Rev. 3
REQUEST: To amend the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved via Ordinance #92-
75 (as amended by Ordinance #09-67), to allow temporary (for a maximum of a 5 -year duration) principal uses for off-
site sales, marketing, and administration facility on the subject site to serve the adjoining Siena Lakes CPUD, and
development standards for this facility. The Orange Blossom PUD will continue to allow the 20 multi -family dwelling
units previously approved as well. Submittal 3 included a revised Master Plan and they are requesting two deviations
for buffers and landscaping.
LOCATION: The ±5.85 -acre subject site is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive, approximately ±690
feet east of Airport Pulling Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. It is bordered on the west side by
St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church and the northern portion of Longview PUD (currently undeveloped), on the east
side by Siena Lakes PUD, and on the north side by Citrus Gardens PUD (aka Lakeside).
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed -Use District,
Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This District
is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments.
Within this designation, and in accordance with the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), a
base density of four (4) units per acre is allowed. The Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (via Ordinance #09-67) was
approved for a maximum of 20 dwelling units which is a density of 3.42 DU/A (20 DUs / 5.85 acres = 3.42 DU/A).
This petition is a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) to add a temporary off-site sales, marketing, and
administration facility on the subject site to serve the adjacent Siena Lakes PUD and development standards for this
facility. As the Urban Residential Subdistrict does not provide for commercial zoning at this location, the proposed uses
may be deemed consistent with the FLUE only if they are determined by Zoning Services Section not to be commercial
uses.
Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis [in bold].
FLUE Policy 5.4:
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Fl, 34104 Page 1 of 2
New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land
Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).
[Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in
its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.]
FLUE 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. [Orange Blossom Gardens PUD Master Plan Exhibit `A' depicts the
subject site fronting on Orange Blossom Drive, a minor collector shown on "Collier 2025 Functional Classification
Map" in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. The Master Plan shows a public access
easement extending north off Orange Blossom Drive and running northward along the eastern boundary of
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and the western boundary of the adjoining Siena Lakes CPUD. This access road
will serve as the ingress/egress for the PUD. Orange Blossom Drive connects with two principal arterials: Airport
Pulling Road to the west and Livingston Road to the east.]
FLUE 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. [No site or Master Plan
showing the site circulation plans has been submitted.]
FLUE 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. [A
`Potential Future Access' is shown on Exhibit `A,' the proposed Orange Blossom Gardens PUD Master Plan,
connecting the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to St. Katherine's Greek Church, which is adjacent to the northern
half of the western boundary of the PUD. The Orange Blossom Gardens Master Plan shows only a 15 -foot buffer
along the southern half of the western boundary between the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and Longview
Center PUD with no connection to Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. The Orange Blossom PUD Master Plan shows
a connection to a 30 -foot wide public access road, which runs northward from Orange Blossom Drive along the
entire length of the eastern boundary of the PUD. This public access road will serve as the access from the PUD
to Orange Blossom Drive. Siena Lakes CPUD also connects to the same public access roadway from the eastern
side of the road; however, their Master Plan includes notations for `gated service and employee entrance' and
`pedestrian and bicycle entrance;' therefore, it does appear that there will be a connection from Siena Lakes
CPUD to the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. The public access easement is shown on Exhibit `A' Master Plan
running along the eastern boundary of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and is intended to connect to Citrus
Lake Drive and the Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens PUD to the north.]
FLUE 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 proposed Orange
Blossom Gardens Master Plan does not show any sidewalks; however, there is no request for a sidewalk deviation
and therefore, sidewalks should be provided in accordance with the Land Development Code. No new housing is
being proposed with this petition. Open spaces, civic facilities, and housing were approved with the previous
Ordinance #09-67.
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PDI may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element -
so long as the proposed uses are determined by Zoning Services Section not to be commercial uses.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Ray Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section
PUDA-PL2017-0524 Orange Blossom Gardens R3.docx
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 2 of 2
NIM Summary
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (PDI -PL -20160003125)
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (PUDA-PL-20170000524)
May 23, 2017, 5:30 p.m.
Collier County Public Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater
2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida 34109
The NIM was held for the above referenced petitions submitted b Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice
President, Planning Services and Business Development of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A on behalf of Erickson Living. The petitions
are described as follows:
(1) An Insubstantial Change to Ordinance No. 09-65, as amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to
retain the existing total number of permitted residential units but revising the ratio of permitted
residential units by increasing the number of independent living units, increasing the number of
assisted living beds and decreasing the number of skilled nursing beds and memory care beds; to
reduce the maximum number of stories for independent living unit buildings from five to four;
and to revise the Master Plan by changing the number of buildings, the entrance location, and the
site, lake and building configuration. The subject property consists of 29.25± acres, located on the
north side of Orange Blossom Road between Airport -Pulling Road and Livingston Road, in
Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Sienna Lakes PUD is
owned by Erickson Living (ELP Naples, LLC), who is the applicant for this petition.
(2) An Amendment to Ordinance No. 09-67, as amended, the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, to
allow for an off-site sales, marketing, and administration facility on the subject site, and to revise
the PUD Master Plan, land uses, and development standards to accompany the request. The
subject property consists of 5.85 acres and is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive,
east of the intersection of Airport Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section I,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Orange Blossom Gardens PUD is
owned by St Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, who is the applicant for this petition
(working with Erickson Living).
Note: This is a summary of the NIM. A recording is also provided.
Attendees:
On behalf of Applicants:
Steve Montgomery, Vice President of Development, Erickson Living
David P. Archibald, Vice President of Development, Erickson Living
Rev. Fr. Philemon Patitsas, St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church
Richard Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester
Bob Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes
Terry Cole, P.E., Vice President, Hole Montes
Barry Jones, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Hole Montes
Paula McMichael, AICP, Director of Planning, Hole Montes
Jeremie Chastain, Planner, Hole Montes
County Staff: Nancy Gundlach, RLA, AICP, Principal Planner Collier County
Approximately 40 members of the public attended.
Page I of 3
11 \2015\2015035 - S1.\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017 docz
Attachment B
Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. Mr.
Montgomery then introduced himself and Mr. Archibald. He spoke about Erickson Living, including an
overview of the company and this project. Mr. Mulhere explained the NIM process, the process for
approval and provided an overview of the project. He then went over the proposed changes to both
Sienna Lakes (through the PDI) and Orange Blossom Gardens (through the PUDA).
Following Mr. Mulhere's presentation, there was approximately one hour of questions from the public in
attendance. The members of the public who attended identified themselves as residents of Lakeside of
Naples to the north, Bridgewater Bay to the east, and Walden Oaks to the south. The following issues
were raised:
Existine Traffic Concerns/Provosed Access Road
Several questions were raised in regards to the proposed access road along the west of the Siena Lakes
CPUD. Increased traffic, large delivery trucks, and access to Lakeside were of concern.
It was explained that the access road will be paved to the property line, but will not be connected to
Lakeside unless they want it to. There will be an easement in place if they decide to do so. The gate will
be installed and paid for by Erickson with an easement from Lakeside. Through traffic into Lakeside will
only be available to Lakeside residents. The access road will have a sidewalk and will be pedestrian
friendly. Mr. Montgomery estimated 2 to 3 deliveries per week once construction has been completed via
the proposed access road. He also explained that traffic due to residents of the proposed living facility
along the access road will be minimal, as the main entrance is via Orange Blossom on the south side and
there is shuttle, bus, and chauffeur services offered. Mr. Mulhere explained that the project as proposed
by these two petitions would not increase trips from what is already approved in both PUDs, and that any
other reasonable assumed use of this land would likely be residential development which would have a
higher trip generation than the CCRC.
Concerns were also raised in regards to existing traffic, speed of travel, and the future widening of Orange
Blossom. It was explained that the County is in the process of obtaining ROW (right-of-way) to expand
Orange Blossom Dr. as well as make improvements to the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport,
but that those improvements were not in the County's five year plan. Also, residents were encouraged to
contact the county in regards to the speed and amount of traffic currently on Orange Blossom Dr.
Walden Oaks residents were concerned re: the widening of Orange Blossom Drive, as they felt prior
construction caused stormwater to drain onto the properties adjacent. It was explained that future
widening will be on the north side away from Walden Oaks and will not affect them.
Desien of the Sales Facility
Attendees asked what the Sales Facility will look like and whether it will be permanent. The Sales
Facility is a permanent structure with architecture consistent to the Assisted Living Facility. There are no
plans to discontinue the use of or to remove the Sales Facility in the foreseeable future.
Desi(in of the Assisted Livine Facility/Parkine
Attendees were concerned that the buildings are too high and will impact the surrounding community's
views. It was explained that the buildings are one story less than originally submitted and that a 6 ft. wall
as well as landscaping will be used to obscure buildings as well as provide a sound barrier.
Page 2 of 3
HA2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.da:x
Concerns were also raised in regards to the location of required backup generators. The generators are
located in a service area at the west side of the Assisted Living Facility, where there is no residential
development adjacent, and are between two buildings to provide sound buffering.
It was asked if there would be street lights. It was explained that street lights will only be located at access
points and intersections, and all lighting will comply with County standards which prohibit light trespass.
Questions were raised in regards to how much parking and the type of parking that will be available. It
was explained that there will be some parking beneath the buildings, some garages, and surface parking.
Stormwater Management
Concerns were raised in regards to stormwater drainage and its affect on the surrounding communities.
Barry Jones and Terry Cole explained that stormwater management would meet all county and state
requirements. Water will drain to an existing canal to the south east which connects to and is contained in
a lake on the adjacent to the Baptist Church to the south. Water will not drain towards Airport Road.
Construction
Attendees were concerned that construction would cause excessive noise and dust. It was explained that
construction noise cannot be entirely removed, but that pile driving will not be used unless necessary to
lay the foundation. [After further review following the NIM, it has been determined that piles will be
required for construction of the site.] Also, construction is limited to Monday — Saturday during the hours
of 6:30a.m.— 7:00p.m. Measures will be taken to prevent dust from leaving the site, such as a fence with
a dust barrier and water trucks.
General/Misc.
General questions were asked in regards to the Assisted Living Facility and amenities. This is Erickson's
first build in Florida and they currently own and operate about 8,000 — 9,000 units in ten states. The
average square footage of the units will be 1,400 sq. ft. and house an average of 1.3 residents per unit.
Construction of the Sales Facility will begin first, and once the required sales percentage is met
construction will begin with the southwest building. Erickson sells all models, but retains ownership of
the units. Erickson estimates a max of 250 employees on-site at any one time. There is a pier located on
one of the lakes for residents' use.
Mr. Mulhere indicated that additional information or new design will be distributed via email to those
who provided their email addresses and is available to the public via the county website.
The meeting concluded at approximately 7:05 PM.
Page 3 of 3
11:\2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.docx
NIM Summary
Siena Lakes CCRC CPDD (PDI -PL -20160003125)
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (PUDA-PL-20170000524)
May 23, 2017, 5:30 p.m.
Collier County Public Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater
2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida 34109
The NIM was held for the above referenced petitions submitted b Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice
President, Planning Services and Business Development of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A on behalf of Erickson Living. The petitions
are described as follows:
(1) An Insubstantial Change to Ordinance No. 09-65, as amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to
retain the existing total number of permitted residential units but revising the ratio of permitted
residential units by increasing the number of independent living units, increasing the number of
assisted living beds and decreasing the number of skilled nursing beds and memory care beds; to
reduce the maximum number of stories for independent living unit buildings from five to four:
and to revise the Master Plan by changing the number of buildings, the entrance location, and the
site, lake and building configuration. The subject property consists of 29.25± acres, located on the
north side of Orange Blossom Road between Airport -Pulling Road and Livingston Road, in
Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Sienna Lakes PUD is
owned by Erickson Living (ELP Naples, LLC), who is the applicant for this petition.
(2) An Amendment to Ordinance No. 09-67, as amended, the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, to
allow for an off-site sales, marketing, and administration facility on the subject site, and to revise
the PUD Master Plan, land uses, and development standards to accompany the request. The
subject property consists of 5.85 acres and is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive,
east of the intersection of Airport Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 1,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Orange Blossom Gardens PUD is
owned by St Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, who is the applicant for this petition
(working with Erickson Living).
Note: This is a summary of the NIM. A recording is also provided.
Attendees:
On behalf of Applicants:
Steve Montgomery, Vice President of Development, Erickson Living
David P. Archibald, Vice President of Development, Erickson Living
Rev. Fr. Philemon Patitsas, St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church
Richard Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester
Bob Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes
Terry Cole, P.E., Vice President, Hole Montes
Barry Jones, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Hole Montes
Paula McMichael, AICP, Director of Planning, Hole Montes
Jeremie Chastain, Planner, Hole Montes
County Staff: Nancy Gundlach, RLA, AICP, Principal Planner Collier County
Approximately 40 members of the public attended.
Page 1 of 3
11:\2015\2015035 - SL.\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.docx
Attachment B
Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. Mr.
Montgomery then introduced himself and Mr. Archibald. He spoke about Erickson Living, including an
overview of the company and this project. Mr. Mulhere explained the NIM process, the process for
approval and provided an overview of the project. He then went over the proposed changes to both
Sienna Lakes (through the PDI) and Orange Blossom Gardens (through the PUDA).
Following Mr. Mulhere's presentation, there was approximately one hour of questions from the public in
attendance. The members of the public who attended identified themselves as residents of Lakeside of
Naples to the north, Bridgewater Bay to the east, and Walden Oaks to the south. The following issues
were raised:
Existine Traffic Concerns/Pronosed Access Road
Several questions were raised in regards to the proposed access road along the west of the Siena Lakes
CPUD. Increased traffic, large delivery trucks, and access to Lakeside were of concern.
It was explained that the access road will be paved to the property line, but will not be connected to
Lakeside unless they want it to. There will be an easement in place if they decide to do so. The gate will
be installed and paid for by Erickson with an easement from Lakeside. Through traffic into Lakeside will
only be available to Lakeside residents. The access road will have a sidewalk and will be pedestrian
friendly. Mr. Montgomery estimated 2 to 3 deliveries per week once construction has been completed via
the proposed access road. He also explained that traffic due to residents of the proposed living facility
along the access road will be minimal, as the main entrance is via Orange Blossom on the south side and
there is shuttle, bus, and chauffeur services offered. Mr. Mulhere explained that the project as proposed
by these two petitions would not increase trips from what is already approved in both PUDs, and that any
other reasonable assumed use of this land would likely be residential development which would have a
higher trip generation than the CCRC.
Concerns were also raised in regards to existing traffic, speed of travel, and the future widening of Orange
Blossom. It was explained that the County is in the process of obtaining ROW (right-of-way) to expand
Orange Blossom Dr. as well as make improvements to the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport,
but that those improvements were not in the County's five year plan. Also, residents were encouraged to
contact the county in regards to the speed and amount of traffic currently on Orange Blossom Dr.
Walden Oaks residents were concerned re: the widening of Orange Blossom Drive, as they felt prior
construction caused stormwater to drain onto the properties adjacent. It was explained that future
widening will be on the north side away from Walden Oaks and will not affect them.
Ucsii!n of the Sales Facility
Attendees asked what the Sales Facility will look like and whether it will be permanent. The Sales
Facility is a permanent structure with architecture consistent to the Assisted Living Facility. There are no
plans to discontinue the use of or to remove the Sales Facility in the foreseeable future.
1)esi(rn of the Assisted Living Facility/Parkine
Attendees were concerned that the buildings are too high and will impact the surrounding community's
views. It was explained that the buildings are one story less than originally submitted and that a 6 ft. wall
as well as landscaping will be used to obscure buildings as well as provide a sound barrier.
Page 2 of 3
HA2015\2015035 - SL\WP\PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.doex
Concerns were also raised in regards to the location of required backup generators. The generators are
located in a service area at the west side of the Assisted Living Facility, where there is no residential
development adjacent, and are between two buildings to provide sound buffering.
It was asked if there would be street lights. It was explained that street lights will only be located at access
points and intersections, and all lighting will comply with County standards which prohibit light trespass.
Questions were raised in regards to how much parking and the type of parking that will be available. It
was explained that there will be some parking beneath the buildings, some garages, and surface parking.
Stormwater Management
Concerns were raised in regards to stormwater drainage and its affect on the surrounding communities.
Barry Jones and Terry Cole explained that stormwater management would meet all county and state
requirements. Water will drain to an existing canal to the south east which connects to and is contained in
a lake on the adjacent to the Baptist Church to the south. Water will not drain towards Airport Road.
Construction
Attendees were concerned that construction would cause excessive noise and dust. It was explained that
construction noise cannot be entirely removed, but that pile driving will not be used unless necessary to
lay the foundation. [After further review following the NIM, it has been determined that piles will be
required for construction of the site.] Also, construction is limited to Monday — Saturday during the hours
of 6:30a.m.— 7:00p.m. Measures will be taken to prevent dust from leaving the site, such as a fence with
a dust barrier and water trucks.
General/Misc.
General questions were asked in regards to the Assisted Living Facility and amenities. This is Erickson's
first build in Florida and they currently own and operate about 8,000 — 9,000 units in ten states. The
average square footage of the units will be 1,400 sq. ft. and house an average of 1.3 residents per unit.
Construction of the Sales Facility will begin first, and once the required sales percentage is met
construction will begin with the southwest building. Erickson sells all models, but retains ownership of
the units. Erickson estimates a max of 250 employees on-site at any one time. There is a pier located on
one of the lakes for residents' use.
Mr. Mulhere indicated that additional information or new design will be distributed via email to those
who provided their email addresses and is available to the public via the county website.
The meeting concluded at approzirnately 7:05 PM
Page 3 of 3
11:\2015\2015035 - SL\WP%PDI\NIM\NIM Summary 5-23-2017.docx
ORDINANCE NO. 17 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-75, AS AMENDED, THE
ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD); PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO
ADD TEMPORARY PRINCIPAL USES FOR OFF-SITE SALES,
MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATION FOR THE SIENA LAKES
PUD AND TO ADD PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY TO
ST. KATHERINE'S GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH INCLUDING
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND CLASSROOMS ANCILLARY
TO THE CHURCH; PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
MASTER PLAN AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 5.85 ACRES IS
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ORANGE BLOSSOM
DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1/10 OF A MILE EAST OF AIRPORT
PULLING ROAD IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20170000524)
WHEREAS, on October 19, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance Number 92-75, which established the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zoning classification; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Ordinance No. 09-67 which amended Ordinance No. 92-75; and
WHEREAS, St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, represented by Robert J. Mulhere,
NAICP of Hole Montes, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
[17 -CPS -01666/1380978/1173
11/30/17
Words ugh are deleted, words underlined are added.
Attachment C
Pagel of 2
SECTION I: AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT A, THE PUD DOCUMENT, OF
ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-75, THE ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS
PUD
Exhibit A, the PUD document, to Ordinance Number 92-75, as amended, is hereby
amended and replaced by Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION II: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2017.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legality:
4 P k %�`
Heidi Ashton-Cicko %
Managing Assistant County Attorney
117 -CPS -01666/1380978/1173
11/30/17
PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman
Words stwslrthrough are deleted, words underlined are added.
Page 2 o C 2
ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS
A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Date Reviewed by CCPC:
Date Approved by BCC:
Ordinance No.
Amendments & Repeals _
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 1 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added
HA2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL-20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, DESCRIPTION AND 4
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Legal Description
1.3 Property Ownership
1.4 General Description of the Property Area
1.5 Physical Description
1.6 Statement of Compliance
SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 6
2.1 Purpose
2.2 General
2.3 Project Plan and Land Use Tracts
2.4 Maximum Project Density
2.5 Site Development Plan Approval Process
2-6Future o r T D Amendment
SECTION III MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 8
OR LIMITED NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
3.1 Purpose
3.2 Maximum Dwelling Units
3.3 Permitted Uses
3.4 Regulations for Multi -Family and its Accessory Uses
3.4.1 Minimum Lot Area
3.4.2 Minimum Lot Width
3.4.3 Minimum Yards
3.4.4 Minimum Floor Area
3.4.5 Maximum Height
3.5 Off StreetRe ulations for Off -Site Sales Marketin
and Administrative Facilities and Administrative Offices and/or
Classrooms Ancillary to the Church
3.6 Deviations
SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 12
4.1 Purpose
4.2 General
4.3 P.U.D. Master Development Plan
4.4 Clearing, Grading, Earthwork & Site Drainage
Page 2 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
HA2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL-20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (124-2017).docx
4.5 Street Construction
4.6 Easements for Underground Utilities
4.7 _Solid Waste Disposal
4.8 WateF Supply Other Utilities
4.9 Solid Waste -Dispesa} Landscaping
4.10 OtheF Wt4jitiesWater Management
4.11 s,_Po I I i ng Places
4.12 Lands aatiping Platting
4.13 WateF ManagemeFA Environmental Stipulations
4.14 Polling Dees Traffic
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A" e-1) — PUD Master Plan
Exhibit'VB " - Legal Description
Page 3 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
HA2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL-20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (124.2017).docx
SECTION I
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, DESCRIPTION AND STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership, and to describe the
existing condition of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of
Orange Blossom Gardens.
1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Being a part of Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
and, more particularly, described in Exhibit "B".
1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The subject property is currently under the ownership of St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox
Church, Inc.
1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AREA
A. The project site contains 5.85 acres (+). It is located on the north side of Orange
Blossom Drive approximately 671' east of Airport Road. Orange Blossom Drive
intersects Airport Road approximately 1 %Z miles north of Pine Ridge Road.
B. Current zoning is PUD. The parcel is bounded on the south by Orange Blossom
Drive then land zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development (Lone Oak), on the east
by private property zoned A, Rufal Affieultufal CPUD (Siena Lakes CCRCI, and
on the tfefthwest by private property zoned A CU, Rural Agricultural, on the
southwest by land zoned PUD (Longview Center), and on the north by land zoned
PUD (Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens). The property is within the Collier
County Water and Sewer District and Collier County Water Management District
#7.
1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The subject property has been farmed. About 60% of the 5.85 acres has been used as a
borrow pit. Soil types found on the site are: Arzell sand (approx. 60%), and Immokalee
fine sand (approx. 40%). (Soil characteristics are from the USDA soil survey of Collier
County dated March, 1954.)
1.6 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development is consistent with the Collier
County Growth Management Plan for the following reasons:
Page 4 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
H:\2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL-20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).doex
A. The project site is designated Urban Residential on the Future Land Use Map and
in the Future Land Use Element. The permitted uses in this PUD are permitted in
the Urban Residential Area. Properties designated Urban Residential are
permitted a base density of up to 4 units per acre. Therefore, the proposed gross
density of 3.42 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the FLUE.
B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses in accordance with Policy
5.4 of the Future Land Use Element.
Elevations within the project site range from 10.5(+) to 11.5(+) with the average grade
being 11.2.Three auger borings within the project site failed to find bedrock. The borings
were discontinued at a depth of 19 feet.
Vegetation consists of scattered second -growth pine trees, some small Wax Myrtle
shrubs, grasses and Brazilian Pepper. The area appears to have been cleared for
agricultural use. Four shallow swales run the length of the property north to south.
Water management for the project will utilize a swale through property to the northwest
to convey lake overflow from storm runoff to the Airport Road Canal. A baffled weir
will limit the discharge rate to an amount acceptable to the Collier County Water
Management Department.
Page 5 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
FI:\2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PIr20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).docx
SECTION II
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
2.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to describe the general plan of development for the project
including land use and density.
2.2 GENERAL
A. Regulations for development of Orange Blossom Gardens shall be in accordance
with the contents of this document, and any applicable sections and/or parts of the
Collier County Land Development Code.
B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as those set
forth in the Land Development Code.
2.3 PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE TRACTS
A. Exhibit A, is the P.U.D. Master Plan. The Master- Plan will be ameaded at ft fUttffe
B. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown on Exhibit A, such
easements (utility, private, semi -private, semi-public, etc.) shall be established
within or along the various tracts as may be necessary or deemed desirable for the
service, function or convenience of the project residents.
2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY
A maximum of 20 residential dwelling units in a multi -family configuration shall be
constructed in the project area. The gross project area is 5.85 acres. The maximum gross
density will be 3.42 units per acre. In addition, temporary principal uses for Siena Lakes
CCRC, limited to off-site sales, marketing, and administrative offices, are allowed, and
also accessory uses to St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church (A -Ag zoned property),
such as administrative offices and/or classrooms ancillary to the church.
2.5 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS
The procedures outlined in the Land Development Code shall be followed for Site
Development Plan approval.
Page 6 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
HA2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL-20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).docx
Page 7 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
H \2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL-20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).docx
SECTION III
MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OR LIMITED NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to set forth the development plans and regulations for the
project.
3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
A maximum of 20 dwelling units will be constructed on the site.
3.3 PERMITTED USES
No building, 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:
1. Multi -family residences
2. Temporary Principal Uses:
a. Off-site sales, marketing, and administrative offices for the Siena
Lakes CCRC CPUD limited to a maximum of 5.622 SF. The
authorization for this use shall be valid for five (5) years
commencing with issuance of first certificate of occupancy. The
temporary use may be extended for an additional five-year period
through the same procedure as an insubstantial change to the PUD
per LDC Section 10.02.13.
3. Accessory uses to St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church (A -Aa zoned
property), such as:
a. Administrative offices and/or classrooms ancillary to the church.
B. Accessory Uses:
1. Accessory uses and structures, including storage facilities.
2. Recreational uses and facilities, such as swimming pools, and children's
playground areas for the benefit of the multi -family residents and their
uests. Such uses shall be visually and architecturally compatible with
adjacent residences.
3.4 REGULATIONS FOR MULTI -FAMILY AND ITS ACCESSORY USES
3.4.1 Minimum Lot Area:
A. 1 acre
Page 8 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
HA2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPCIPUDA-P1r20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).doex
3.4.2 Minimum Lot Width:
A. 200 feet
3.4.3 Minimum Yards
A. Setback along north, south and west side =35'
B. Setback along east side = 25'
C. Setback from lake = 30'
D. Distance between principal structures = 20'
3.4.4 Minimum Floor Area:
A. 900 square feet
3.4.5 Maximum Height of Multi -Family Development:
A. Two floors of living area with option of having one (1) floor of parking beneath
the living area.
3.5 REGULATIONS FOR OFF-SITE SALES, MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATION
FACILITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND/OR CLASSROOMS
ANCILLARY TO THE CHURCH
3.5.1 Applicability:
A. With approval of an SDP an off-site marketing sales and administration facility
supporting the Continuing Care Retirement Community on the adjacent Siena
Lakes PUD may be developed on Development Area 2 as depicted on the PUD
Master Plan. Such facility shall be subject to all development standards set forth
below. Access to this facility shall be from Sienna Lakes PUD as depicted on the
PUD Master Plan.
B. With approval of an SDP, administrative offices and/or classrooms ancillary to
and/or other principal uses that serve as accessory uses to St. Katherine's Greek
Orthodox Church may be developed on Development Area 2. These facilities are
subiect to the development standards set forth below.
3.5.2 Development Standards
Page 9 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
HA2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL-20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (124-2017).docx
A. Maximum Building Height:
1. Principal Structures: 53 feet Zoned Height,• 60 feet Actual Height
2. Accessory Structures: 30 feet Zoned Height,• 35 feet Actual Height
B. Setbacks:
1. Principal Structures:
a. South Perimeter Boundary: 20 feet
b. North Perimeter Boundary: 80 feet
c. West Perimeter Boundary: 25 feet
d. East Perimeter Boundary: 15 feet
e. From internal drives: 10 feet
f. Lake Setback: 20 feet
2. Accessory Structures:
a. South Perimeter Boundary: 20 feet
b. North Perimeter Boundary: 25 feet
c. West Perimeter Boundary: 10 feet
d. East Perimeter Boundary: 10 feet
e. From internal drives: 10 feet
f. Lake setback: 20 feet
3. Perimeter Landscape Buffers
a. Adjacent to Orange Blossom Drive: 10 foot wide Type "D"
Landscape Buffer
b. North Perimeter Boundary: 15 foot wide Type "B" Landscape
Buffer
c. West Perimeter Boundary: 15 foot wide Type "B" Landscape
Buffer, except as provided for in Section 4.9.
Page 10 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
HA2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (124-2017).docx
d. East Perimeter Boundary: 10 foot wide Type "D" Landscape
Buffer, except as provided for in Section 4 9
4. Minimum Distance Between Structures
a. Principal Structures: 30 feet
b. Accessory Structures: N/A
3.6 DEVIATIONS
A. Deviation 1 requests relief from LDC Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 Table of Buffer
Requirements by Land Use Classifications to allow no perimeter landscaMe
buffer where shared stormwater lakes exist with adjacent properties
Page 11 of 15
Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added.
H:\2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PI.20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).docx
SECTION IV
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
4.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to set forth the standards for the development of this
project.
4.2 GENERAL
All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with the final development plan and
all applicable state and local laws, codes and regulations.
4.3 P.U.D. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. Exhibit "A"(Figure 1), the P.U.D. Master Plan, illustrates the proposed
development. HOWeVff, this PUD has sunse4ed and a futkir-e PUD affiendment is
B. Minor site alterations to the Master Plan may be permitted in accordance with the
Land Development Code.
C. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to
insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and project
areas.
4.4 CLEARING, GRADING, EARTHWORK & SITE DRAINAGE
All clearing, grading, earthwork & site drainage work shall be performed in accordance
with applicable State and local codes.
4.5 STREET CONSTRUCTION
The internal road will be 24' wide and 90° parking 18 feet deep, in accordance with
zoning regulations.
4.6 EASEMENTS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
Easements for underground utilities such as power, telephone, cable T.V., wastewater
collection, water distribution, and similar uses shall be located and granted as required for
those purposes.
Page 12 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
HA2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPCIPUDA-PL20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).docx
4.47 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Arrangements shall be made with the Collier County solid waste disposal franchise
holder to provide for solid waste collection to serve the project.
Page 13 of 15
Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added.
1i \2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL-20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).docx
•
■
1kM IMF
SO
•
-
•
4.47 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Arrangements shall be made with the Collier County solid waste disposal franchise
holder to provide for solid waste collection to serve the project.
Page 13 of 15
Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added.
1i \2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL-20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).docx
4.4.98 OTHER UTILITIES
Utility lines for Telephone, Power, and Cable T.V. service, when available, shall be
installed underground.
4.4-29 LANDSCAPING
All landscaping shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code.
The open space area identified on the PUD Master Plan shall be grassed and landscaping
shall be provided around the perimeter-, except that no perimeter landscape buffer shall
be required where shared stormwater lakes as referenced in 4.10 C below and approved
on the SFWMD permit or permit modification cross property lines with abutting
properties. (See Section 3.6).
4.4310 WATER MANAGEMENT
A. Detailed site drainage plans shall be submitted to the Project Review Services
Section for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until
approval of construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by the
Project Review Services Section.
B. An Excavation Permit will may be required in accordance with the Land
Development Code in order to bring the existing lake into compliance with
present-day standards.
C. if approved by SFWMD, shared stormwater lakes may be designed to cross the
Property boundaries between the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and the St.
Katherine's Greek Church (A -Agricultural zoned) property, and/or between
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and Longview PUD. The SFWMD permit or
permit modification shall identify all entities responsible for maintenance of said
lakes and related infrastructure. Easements necessary for such maintenance shall
be established prior to SDP and/or Plat approval that includes construction of said
lakes.
Page 14 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
HA2015\2015035 - OBG\WP\PUDA\CCPC\PUDA-PL,20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).docx
4.4-411 POLLING PLACES
Space shall be provided within common areas for the purpose of permitting residents to
vote during elections, if required by the Collier County Supervisor of Elections in
accordance with the Land Development Code.
4.4412 PLATTING
Platting shall be required if units are to be sold fee simple or if the project is developed as
an integrated phased SDP, in accordance with the Land Development Code.
4.13 ENVIRONMENTAL STIPULATIONS
A. Prior to approval of an SDP, or any other Final Local Development Order for
development on Development Area 1 as depicted on Exhibit C the PUD Master
Plan, if requested by Collier County, the developer shall submit the following:
1. A listed species survey,
2. Soil Testing, as required by the LDC.
-AB Unless required as a condition related to Item A.I above Nno native vegetation is
required to be preserved.
4.14 TRAFFIC
A. The developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of a
traffic signal and related intersection improvements should they become needed in
the future. The signal will be owned, operated and maintained by the County.
B. Forty -Four (44) feet shall be reserved along the southern portion of the PUD for
the expansion of Orange Blossom Drive, including roadway and county utilities
and will be conveyed by easement to Collier County prior to the issuance of the
first certificate of occupancy in the PUD or within 12 months of approval of this
PUD, whichever comes first.
C. Richt-of-way dedication described in B., above, shall be eligible for road impact
fee credits. Property value determinations for the purpose of impact fee credits
shall be made at time of property transfer based upon fair market value
determined by qualified appraisers. If all such credits cannot be applied by the
property owner in the development of the PUD, the owner may sell and assign
any excess credits to a third party_
Page 15 of 15
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
HA2015\2015035 - OBGIWP\PUDAICCPCIPUDA-PL-20170000524 Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (12-4-2017).docx
LAKESIDE OF NAPLES AT CITRUS GARDENS
(PUD)
1
CITRUS LAKE DRIVE _ ....•
r I
15' WIDE TYPE 'B'
LANDSCAPE BUFFER I I I t
$
1 II
FUTURE I I
I
EVEL OPMENT AREA
C URCW
I
A WLED MASTER I
I
40NED I
N MUST BE i
A PU/CU
I APP WD BY INE I I I
J
I COON PRIOR TO I
I ANY D OPMENT I
s
\
I OCC TNG I I t
�--- 3 WIDE PUBLIC I ZONED
I ELATE I I A ESS EASEMENT I A
FWP
-\
I i
EXISTING DRAINAG
I
OUTFALL TO AIRPOR
I
ROAD CANAL I �t
ORANGE BLOSSOM
ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS (PUD) I
GARDENS 709E REZ17WEb.
I
LONGVIEW
} 15' NOE TYPE I 0' WIDE TYPE 'D' 1
(PUD)
LANDSCAPE B FER
I T I L DSCAPE BUFFER t
E TYPE 'D'
I
r10
LAN CAPE BUFFER I I
L.J J I t
EXIST. 8
R.O.W. LONE OAK
I
(PUD)
LONGVIEW
(PUD)
I NO NA71VE VEGETATION IS REQUIRED 120
i TO BE PRESERVED.
I•
SCA IN FEET
Y
USED 12/01/2009
060 Eneore Wo
No In FL. 341 f0
Orange Orange Blossom Gardens
`°`u.'0.' I,.ne
DIIAw1N OAe
Phonet 239 254-2000
PUD Master Plan
p"
5eena atnt>�is
norf a 0er11/ioab of
Authorfsallon Nero:
Exhibit "A"
°"";1/m I°°",
1
N
LAKESIDE OF NAPLES AT CITRUS GARDENS
(PUD)
CITRUS LAKE DRIVE t
I 15' WId1= TYPE 'B'
'I
,�(' I LANDSCAPE BUFFER I I
, I
I I
DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 1 SENA LAKES
CHURCH I 4.23 Ac. ± I I CPDD
ZON81)
A/PU/CU II 1
ORANGE BLOSSOM
1 i GARDENS
l (PUD) l , I 30 WIDE PUBLIC
5.85 AC.# I"— ACCESS EASEMENT
I I I PER SIENA LAKES CPUD
ORD. 2009-65
EXISTING I I I
O ENT1A ,U'1tJ E ACCESS LAKE
I
EXISTING DRAINAGE I I
OUTFALL TO AIRPORT Ii I
ROAD CANAL 1
EXISTING
—\ LAKE I I I I
LONGVIEW �-- 15' WIDE TYPE 'B' I �-- I 10' WIDE TYPE 'D'
(PUD) I LANDSCAPE BUFFER �� LANDSCAPE BUFFER
DEVELOPMENT AREA 2 1 1 l
1.62 Ac.± I
10' WIDE TYPE 'D' I I
LANDSCAPE BUFFER Ij I
-- ! — � — = — —L - -- -- -- --
1
EXIST. 60' R.O.W. LONE OAK
(PUD)
LONGVIEW NOTE *
NNATIVE VEGETATION IS REQUIRED
(PUD) TO BE PRESERVED.
REVISED 12/04/2017
REVISED 10/02/2017
REVISED 06/19/2017
0 120
SCALE IN FEET
950 Encore WayCHECKED
Na �.. FL 34110
Phone. 2395 254-2000
L O Florida Certifloote of
F>IMEDl4UMS.9>ihElalT ALdhorluflon No.1772
Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD Master Plan
Exhibit "A"
BY :
P.H.Cm.
PRD IECT Na
so &l5
oRAMN BY:
ERT.
CAD FU NAME
plo
"'
°"'� :
03 /2017
EXHIBIT -'mow
1 OF 1
AGENDA ITEM 9-C
Attachment A
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 18 –
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE SABAL
BAY MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD),
ORDINANCE NO. 05-59, AS AMENDED, TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM
FLOOR AREA FOR MULTI-FAMILY/TIMESHARE DWELLINGS
(EXCLUDING TOWNHOUSES) FROM 700 SQUARE FEET TO 551
SQUARE FEET, FOR UP TO APPROXIMATELY 15 PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ON TRACT 1 OF THE SABAL BAY
COMMERCIAL PLAT—PHASE ONE SUBDIVISION. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THOMASSON
DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET WEST OF U.S. 41 EAST, IN
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF ±34.19 ACRES. [PDI-
PL20170003546].
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission is authorized by the Board of
County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUD Ordinances in accordance with
Subsection 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed planning
agency for the area hereby affected, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered
the advisability of the requested insubstantial change for the property hereinafter described, and
has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made
concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection
10.02.13.E.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this
Commission in public meeting assembled and the Commission having considered all matters
presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Petition No. PDI-PL20170003546 filed by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP. of Q. Grady Minor
and Associates, on behalf of Continental 422 Fund LLC, with respect to the property described in
Ordinance No. 05-59, as amended, the Sabal Bay Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, be and
the same is hereby approved to reduce the minimum floor area for multi-family/timeshare
[17 -CPS -01723/1386107/1]71 1/2/18 1
dwellings (excluding townhouses) from 700 square feet to 551 square feet, for up to
approximately 15 percent of the total dwelling units on Tract I of the Sabal Bay Commercial
Plat—Phase One subdivision, as shown on the revision to the Sabal Bay MPUD attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote on the day
of 2018.
ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head
Growth Management Department
Approved as to form and legality:
Scott A. Stone
Assistant County Attorney
�4 ' /A0'a
Attachment: Exhibit A – amendment to MPUD
Karen Homiak, Vice -Chairman
[17 -CPS -01723!1386107/1]71 1/2/18 2
@0
Sabal Bay PUD
Revised PUD Language
SECTION III
RESIDENTIAL
*** *** *** *** *** Textbreak *** *** *** *** ***
3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TABLE I: SABAL BAY MPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "It" RESIDENTIAL AREA
Words un erlined are additions; words &Mtwk4hp&Hg,4 are deletions
Sabal Bay PUD, PL20170003546 Last Revised 12720/20/7
Exhibit A
Page l oj2
a
0
SINGLE
MULTIFAMILY/
SETBACK
SINGLE
FAMILY
ZERO LOT
TWO
FAMILY/
FAMILY
TIMESHARE
CLUBHOUSE/
ALFs
DETACHED
LINE
DUPLEX
ATTACHED/
DWELLINGS
(EXCLUDING
RECREATION
BUILDINGS
GCRC'S"
TOWNHOME
TOWNHOUSFS
PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURES10
3,500 SF
Minimum Lot Area
5,000 SF
4,000 SF
per lot or
2,600 SF
N/A
10,000 SF
Per Section
unit
3.5 B
Minimum Lot Width'
40'
35'
35' per lot or
20'
N/A
N/A
N/A
unit
15' or.5 BH,
whichever is greater,
Front Yard Setback0
15'
15'
15'
15'
and a minimum of 75
20'
per Section
feet from the PUD
3.5 B
perimeter boundary.
15' or .5 BH,
Front Yard for Side'
whichever is greater,
Entry Garage
10'
10'
10'
10'
and a minimum of 75
N/A
N/A
feet from the PUD
perimeter boundary,
15'or.5 BH,
Rear Yards
whichever is greater,
10'
10'
10'
10'
and a minimum of 75
15'
Per Section
feet from the PUD
3.S.B
erimeter boundary.
15' or 50% of BH,
whichever is greater,
Side Yard
5'
0' or 5'r
0' or 5'3
(' or 513
and a minimum of 75
10,
Per Section
feet from the PUD
3.5 B
---perimeter
boundary
From Preserve
25'
25'
25
25'
25'
25'
25'
Maximum Heights
35'
35'
35'
35'
50' above FEMA
55
Per Section
elevation5�7
3.5.B
Floor Area Minimum
(SF)
1200 SF
1200 SF
1200 SF
1200 SF
700 SF111
N/A
N/A s
Minimum Distance
10'
10'
10'
10'
15' or .5 SBH,
15' or .5 SBH,
15' or .5
Between
1
1
1
whichever is I
whichever is
SBH,
Words un erlined are additions; words &Mtwk4hp&Hg,4 are deletions
Sabal Bay PUD, PL20170003546 Last Revised 12720/20/7
Exhibit A
Page l oj2
a
0
Sabal Bay PUD
Revised PUD Language
Principal Structures4
greater'
STRUCTURES10
Tgreatere4TwhicheverisACCESSORY
Front
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
Side
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
Rear
5'
5'
5'
51
5'
10'
10'
From Preserve 1
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
101
Minimum Distance
Between Accessory
0' or 10'
0' or 10'
0' or 10'
0' or 10'
0' or 1014
0' or 1014
0' or 10'
Structures on same lot
Minimum Distance
Between Accessory
And Principal
0' or 10'
0' or 10'
0' or 10'
0' or 10'
0' or 1014
0' or 1014
0' or 10'
Structures on same tot
Maximum Height
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
50'
SPS
80'
BH: Building Height- measured as defined in LDC Section 1.08.02 Definitions "building, zoned height of"
SBH: (Sum of Building Heights): Combined height of two adjacent buildings for the purpose of determining setback
requirements.
SPS: Same as Principal Structure
Front yards shall be measured as follows: If the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, setback is measured from the
adjacent right-of-way line.
*1 - Setback from lake easements for all accessory uses and structures may be 0 feet. Setback from preserve areas shall be 25 feet
for principal structures and 10 feet for accessory structures, or as may otherwise be permitted in accordance with the applicable
provisions set fort[ in LDC Section 3.05.07.
*2 - Minimum lot width for cul-de-sac lots consistentwith the measurement standards established in the LDC.
*3 - Zero feet (0'). Where the zero foot (0') yard option is utilized, the opposite side of the structure or attached structures shall
have a ten foot (10') side yard. Where zero lot line development is proposed, a conceptual site plan shall be submitted
with the application for final subdivision plat approval. The conceptual site plan shall depict the proposed location of dwelling
units and the required setbacks,
*4 - Distance between principal and accessory structures for multi -family development: Where common architectural themes are
utilized for a common development tract, distances between principal structures may be reduced subject to Fire District approval at
the time of site plan review. In no case shall the distance between principal structures be less than 10 feet or .25 SBH, whichever
is greater. A common architectural theme shall be demonstrated during SDP review through submittal of drawings and renderings
depicting common signage, common entry design features, common landscape and landscape features, and common architectural
building design features.
*5 - Building height is measured as set forth in LDC Section 1.08.02 Definitions "building, zoned height of." Actual height of
structures in Single Family Detached. Zero Lot Line, Two Family/Duplex, and Single Family Attached/Townhome categories
shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'), Multi-family/timeshare structures within Tract R, as depicted on the MPUD
Master Plan (Exhibit "A") shall have a maximum height of 10 residential floors over parking, not to exceed 150 feet of zoned
height as measured pursuant to LDC Section 1.08.02 Definitions 'Buildings, zoned height of ", and a maximum actual height of
165 feet.
*6 - Front loading garages shall have a minimum font yard setback 23 feet, as measured from the back of sidewalk. Side loaded
garages may be located less than 23 feet from the back of sidewalk provided that the driveway design allows for parking of
vehicles so as not to interfere with or block the sidewalk.
*7 - 50 feet for R8.
*8 - Standards not specified herein shall be those specified in Section 5.05.04 of the LDC in effect as of the date of adoption of
this MPUD Ordinance. There is no minimum floor area established for an ALF or CCRC; however, the maximum floor area ratio
(FAR) is .60. The ALF/CCRC use is prohibited in the R2-13, R5, and R7 areas.
*9 - Minimum separation between parking decks under mid -rise structures shall not be less than 60 feet.
*10 - In no instance shall a structure encroach into a required landscape buffer, other than those structures permitted to be
located within a landscape buffer in accordance with LDC applicable provisions in effect at the time or permitting.
Words underlined are additions; words &Mffek4hPog4 are deletions
Sabal Bay PUD, PL20170003546 Last Revised 12/20/2017 Page 2 of 2
Attachment B
Co14"t;y
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner
Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner,
Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: December 13, 2017
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PDI - PL20170003546 RI
PETITION NAME: Sabal Bay Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) with Insubstantial Changes
(PDI)
REQUEST: To amend Sabal Bay MPUD, approved via Ordinance #05-59, as amended via Ordinance #12-
12, to modify the Development Standards Table to reduce the multi -family minimum floor area from 700
square feet to 551 square feet and 660 square feet. Submittal 2 revises 3.5 Development Standards table to
clarify only Tract I will have reduced Floor Area Minimums with this petition.
LOCATION: The 12,416.49 -acre site is located on the southeast side of the intersection of Tamiami Trail
East (US 41) and Thomasson Drive, and north and west of the Wentworth Estates PUD; in Section 19,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East and Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, and 36, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject PUD is designated Urban, Urban Commercial
District, Urban Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict #17, and Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Coastal
Fringe Subdistrict, and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the
Growth Management Plan. The Activity Center Subdistrict is intended to accommodate a variety of residential
and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments. The Sabal Bay MPUD is approved via
Ordinance #12-12 for a maximum of 1,999 residential dwelling units and 182,000 square feet of commercial.
This petition is for Insubstantial changes to the Planned Unit Development (PDI) to amend the MPUD to
modify the Developments Standards Table to reduce the multi -family minimum floor area from 700 to 551
square feet. This square feet reduction in floor area is to be applied to two different size studio units with 551
square feet for 24 of the units or 660 square feet for 28 units. The total number of units of the Springs at Sabal
Bay project is 340 apartments. No changes to the PUD boundary, or in permitted uses, densities, or intensities
are being requested.
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 1 of 2
Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis
(in bold).
FLUE Policy 5.6:
New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in
the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as
amended). (Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their
review of the petition.)
FLUE Objective 7 and Relevant Policies
Due to the minor changes proposed (no changes in permitted uses, densities, or intensities), and since the
Sabal Bay MPUD was evaluated for consistency with the Future Land Use Element prior to the adoption
of Ordinance #12-12 on March 12, 2012, staff is of the opinion that a re-evaluation of FLUE policies
under Objective 7 (pertaining to access, interconnections, walkability, etc.) is not necessary.
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PDI may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use
Element.
cc: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Ray Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section
PDI-PL2017-3546 Sabal Bay RZ docx
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 2 of 2
Attachment C
EXCERPT FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR SABAL BAY, PUDA-PL2011-0000047
FINDINGS OF FACT:
PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the
CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria"
(Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
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.
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property
development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area as
limited by staff. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate
assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the
area.
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 development will be
required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that
appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of
infrastructure will be provided by the developer.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives
and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the attached report from
Comprehensive Planning staff and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those
staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found
consistent with the overall GMP.
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.
Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be
compatible with the surrounding area, subject to approval of the recommended limitation
of staff, the proposed development standards and project commitments.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Page 1 of 6
EXCERPT FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR SABAL BAY, PUDA-PL2011-0000047
The amount of native preserve aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of
the LDC.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this
time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP
Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must comply with
all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are
sought. Additionally, the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that
should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater
disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the
commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities
requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. Additionally this
petition represents an amendment to an approved PUD; no acreage or intensity or density
is being added.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications ofsuch 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 ofsuch regulations.
The petitioner is seeking 15 deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the
purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A).
This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and
deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be
required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an analysis
of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is
recommending approval of all deviations.
Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. 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.
The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed project. Staff is of the
opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the
Page 2 of 6
EXCERPT FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR SABAL BAY, PUDA-PL2011-0000047
project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that this
petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The petition can also be deemed
consistent with the COME. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed
consistent with the GMP subject to staffs conditions of approval.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and
Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis.
Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern,
and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance.
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 and there are no land additions proposed as part of this
amendment.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current
property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning.
S. 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 in compliance
with the LDC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to
develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow.
Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing
PUD ordinance regulations. The applicant's request is consistent with the proposed
GMPA.
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, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes numerous restrictions
and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the 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
Page 3 of 6
EXCERPT FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR SABAL BAY, PUDA-PL2011-0000047
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 with the
mitigation that will be provided by the developer. Staff believes the petition can be deemed
consistent with all elements of the GMP if the mitigation is included in any
recommendation of approval.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. 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 development 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 location of the proposed buildings, combined with the setbacks and project buffers will
help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be 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;
The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is 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;
Page 4 of 6
EXCERPT FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR SABAL BAY, PUDA-PL2011-0000047
The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning
designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC
provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed
appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment
meets the intent of the PUD district, if staff's conditions of approval are adopted, and
further, believes the public interest will be maintained.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
As noted previously, the subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the
PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the
GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity
of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban -designated areas of Collier
County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer
commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the
community.
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 GMP and the LDC;
and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed
amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in
other portions of the staff report.
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.
Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site
alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and
local development regulations during the site development plan or platting 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 persons have
concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments
contained in the PUD document.
Page 5 of 6
EXCERPT FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR SABAL BAY, PUDA-PL2011-0000047
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.
Page 6 of 6
Attachment D
FinnTimothy
From:
WilloughbyChristine
Sent:
Monday, December 04, 2017 8:52 AM
To:
Sharon Grider
Cc:
FinnTimothy
Subject:
RE: Springs at Sabal Bay Proposed Development
Good Morning Sharon,
Thank you for sharing your concerns. I am the planner on the Site Development Plan for this project. The development
standards are approved through the Planned Unit Development process and myjob is to apply these standards. The
project will go through a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) and this will be reviewed by the Transportation reviewer.
You may at any time come into Horseshoe Drive to look at the plans.
I have copied the project planner for the Planned Unit Development Insubstantial Change (PUDI), so he is also aware of
your concerns.
Thank you,
Christine Willoughby
Senior Planner
Development Review Division
Growth Management Department
How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey.
We appreciate your Feedback!
-----Original Message -----
From: Sharon Grider [mailto:sdg0624@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 2:03 PM
To: WilloughbyChristine<ChristineWiIIoughby@col liergov.net>
Subject: Springs at Sabal Bay Proposed Development
Dear Christine
It is my understanding that you are one of the folks that have input on the apartment complex that is being
proposed/developed on Thomasson near US 41. As such, I wanted to provide my thoughts and input for consideration
as this project develops.
1. Traffic: After reviewing the proposed plan, I am very concerned with the traffic issues that will arise with both
entrance/exit points located on Thomasson. Thomasson is only two lanes and is already extremely busy. Adding 350
new residences will exacerbate the already existing traffic flow along Thomasson heading towards Bayshore. And, part
of the path includes Avalon Elementary school placing more traffic in the school zone and placing children at increased
risk for injuries/accidents by the increased traffic flow.
2. Aesthetics: We can all agree that some of the housing located along Thomasson is not very attractive. So it is my
hope that these apartments will be a long term improvement to the aesthetics of the community as opposed to a
drawback. To that end, it is my understanding that an aluminum fence - as opposed to a wall - is proposed for the
development. The wall built "across the street" for the Isles of Collier Preserve is extremely attractive, includes a variety
of landscaping and is well kept. It would be my hope that this development is as or more attractive so there is a value
add to the neighborhood. There is enough run down/un kept properties just off Thomasson for the area now.
3. Residents: Are you able to confirm that this will not be low income housing? Again, this area is struggling to improve
itself and any new developments should add to that improvement rather than contribute to further declines.
Thanks in advance for your consideration
Sharon Grider
5068 Tortola Ct
Naples, Florida
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
FinnTimothy
From:
WilloughbyChristine
Sent:
Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:46 AM
To:
Patricia Young; FinnTimothy
Cc:
FialaDonna; StrainMark
Subject:
RE: Springs at Sabal Bay
Ms. Young,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the above project. I am forwarding your email to the Tim Finn, he is the
Planner that is handling the Planned Unit Development Insubstantial Change (PDI) to the Sabal Bay MPUD. He can make
it part of the record for this project,
I am the planner for the Site Development Plan, meaning I will be making sure the proposed project meets the
development standards provided in the PUD Ordinance once it is approved by the Board. Feel free to contact me once
the SDP is submitted and you wish to see what they are proposing to build on the site.
Have a good day.
chrtst%we V`%Ltoughblu
Senior Planner
Development Review Division
Growth Management Department
Co [Ter Cuuiaty
How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey.
We appreciate your Feedback!
From: Patricia Young [mailto:payoung3@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:51 AM
To: StrainMark <MarkStrain@colliergov.net>; WilloughbyChristine<ChristineWillough by@col Iiergov.net>
Cc: FialaDonna <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>
Subject: Springs at Sabal Bay
Dear Mr. Strain and Ms.Willoughby:
I am a resident of the Isles of Collier Preserve writing to comment on the proposed apartment development across
from the Isles on Thomasson Drive, the Springs at Sabal Bay. I do intend to attend the public meeting on November 29,
which I understand to be for informational purposes only. I look forward to learning more specifics about the project.
In the meantime, there are some more global considerations that concern whatever is to be built at that location:
-on the 1-2(?) mile stretch of Thomasson from route 41 to the Bayview Park, there are five significant entities, in
addition to the Shoppes at Hammock Cove, utilizing that stretch of Thomasson. These are: 1)a public boat ramp, 2)the
Botanical Gardens, 3)the 260(?) unit townhouse development at Bayshore, 4) the Avalon Elementary School, and 5)the
East Naples Community Park. And, one other, as yet unbuilt property, is owned by CCPS and slated to become a Middle
School which would make 6 significant entities. Can Thomasson adequately accommodate the traffic by adding
yet another 340 unit complex? Collier's draw for tourists not being able to easily access these amenities could be
adversely impacted.
-impact on the population at the Avalon School is crucial. The school already has a 93% Economically Disadvantaged
student body. We want to attract more middle/upper income residents to offset this shocking situation. How is this
being addressed by Collier County? Maybe we need more condos, not smaller studio apartments or other rentals in this
location.
-positioning of egress from the project location should be studied. Cardinal Way has much less traffic, as does
Thomason Lane.
Please give strong consideration to the above. Children, tourists, boaters and residents are depending on you.
Respectfully,
Patricia Young, 5074 Andros Drive, Naples, 34113
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
FinnTimothy
From:
Gary Lubben <glubbenl@mac.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 08, 2018 4:13 PM
To:
FinnTimothy
Cc:
StramMark
Subject:
Upcoming Meeting on 1/18/18
Attachments:
Springs Property Detail.xlsx, Denial Rationale.pptx
Timothy,
I'd like the attached materials be included in the packet of materials for the meeting and ultimately when the Springs at
Sabal Bay project is discussed with the CCPC. I plan to present these materials during the public comments at this
meeting. Please call if you have any questions. I can be reached at 612-940-2489. I'd emailed you earlier asking for the
presentation that would be presented by the applicant. When I met with Mark Strain today he clarified that was I should
be asking for is the staff presentation on this topic. It was my understanding this is scheduled to be completed by this
coming Friday.
Sincerely,
Gary Lubben
5096 Tortola Ct
Naples, FL
The BCC/CCPC Should Deny Springs @ Sabal
Bay's Insubstantial Change Request
• Approval is inconsistent with other developers actions such as Cirrus Point
who modified their project to comply with previous sq. footage minimums.
• Approval would establish a dangerous new precedent for future developers.
Future developer requests of this new standard could increase density for
the East Naples community writ large.
• Current homeowners in the same MPUD should be able to rely on the 2012
BCC decisions that limited minimum apartment sizes to 700 sq ft. This is a
standard Collier Enterprises previously accepted. Approval could
disadvantage of over 500 homeowners in the same MPUD.
• Lease terms (3 mo. w/ furnished/commercial lease options) appear more in
line with extended stay/transient usage as opposed to longer-term, year-
round members of the community.
• Planned construction techniques are inconsistent with other Sabal Bay
MPUD properties and represent a longer term degradation risk.
• To date, no other developed Springs properties comply with the 700' sq. ft
standard. (Attached Excel document).
Property
Location
Apartment Options
Minimum Sq Ft
Springs at Sandstone Ranch
Longmont, CO
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at 2534
Johnstown, CO
S, 1, 2, 3
TBD
Springs at Eagle Bend
Aurora, CO
S, 1, 2, 3
TBD
Springs at Allison Valley
Colorado Springs, CO
S,1, 2, 3
Springs at Bee Ridge
Sarasota, FL
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Gulf Coast
Estero, FL
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Palma Sola
Bradenton, FL
S, 10 2,3
Springs at Port Charlotte
Port Charlotte, FL
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Six Mile Cyprus
Ft Myers, FL
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Tapestry
Kissimmee, FL
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Tradition
Port St Lucie, FL
S, 1, 2, 3
TBD
Lost Creek at Lakewood Ranch
Bradenton, FL
1, 2, 3
877
Springs at McDonough
McDonough, GA
5, 1, 2, 3
TBD
Springs at Weber Road
Springs at Orchard Road
Springs at South Elgin
Romeoville, IL
North Aurora, IL
South Elgin, IL
S, 1, 2, 3
5, 1, 2, 3
5, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Canterfield
West Dundee, IL
S, 1, 2, 3
TBD
Springs at Jordan Creek
West Des Moines, IA
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Bettendorf
Bettendorf, IA
5, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Winchester Road
Lexington, KY
5, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Hurstbourne
Louisville, KY
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Hamburg
Lexington, KY
TBD
Springs at County Club
Lake Charles, LA
-S,1,2,3
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Juban Crossing
Baton Rouge, LA
5, 1, 2, 3
TBD
Springs at River Chase
New Orleans, LA
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Fremaux Town Center
New Orleans, LA
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Knapp's Crossing
Grand Rapids, MI
5, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Apple Valley
Apple Valley, MN
5,1, 2, 3
Springs at South Broadway
Rochester, MN
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Egan Drive
Savage, MN
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Liberty Township
Liberty Township, OH
S, 1, 2, 3
TBD
Springs at West Chester
West Chester, OH
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at May Lakes
Oklahoma City, OK
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Memorial
Oklahoma City, OK
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Woodlands South
Tulsa, OK
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Essex Farms
Charleston, SC
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Laurens Road
Greenville, SC
S, 1, 20 3
Springs at Lakeline
Austin, TX
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at University Drive
Bryan, TX
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Live Oak
Live Oak, TX
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Creekside
New Braunfels, TX
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Round Rock
Round Rock, TX
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Alamo Ranch
San Antonio, TX
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Bandera
San Antonio, TX
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Cottonwood Creek
Waco, TX
S, 1, 2, 3
Springs at Sunfield
Buda, TX
S, 1, 2, 3
TBD
Springs at McKinney
McKinney,TX
S, 1, 2, 3
TBD
Bridlewood Apartments
Pewaukee, WI
1, 2, 3
TBD
Springs at Kenosha
Kenosha, WI
S, 1, 2,3
Springs at Sun Prairie
Sun Prairie, WI
5, 1, 2, 3
TBD
Apartments offering (Studio, 1-3BR ) by Springs branded properties to date
FinnTimothy
From: Marc Rosenberg <marc@marcrosenberg.com>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 4:50 PM
To: FinnTimothy
Subject: In reference to: PL20170003546; Public Hearing on January18, 2018, at 9:00am
Attachments: Traffic Safety and Landscaping Aesthetics Concerns for Springs at Sabal Bay.pdf;
ATTOOOOl.htm
Importance: High
Mr. Finn,
Please accept the attached concerns regarding Springs of Sabal Bay. It is my understanding that this document will be
distributed to all parties. If possible, please confirm receipt.
Thanks you,
Marc Rosenberg
6864 Bequia Way
Naples, FL 34113
marc marcrosenberg.com
908.419-1178 (cell)
MARC J. ROSENBERG
January 8, 2018
Timothy Finn, Principal Planner
Collier Country Planning Commission
timothy.finn@colliercountyFL.gov
In reference to: PL20170003546; Public Hearing on January18, 2018, at 9:00am
Re: Traffic Safety and Landscaping Aesthetic Concerns for Springs at Sabal Bay
I would like to address traffic safety and congestion issues, as well as landscaping and aesthetic
concerns impacted by the proposed Springs at Sabal Bay project. I am quite concerned that the
Springs project will have an adverse impact on our community both now and in the future.
Traffic Safety
I am very concerned that the 700+ vehicles of additional traffic that this project will add to
Thomasson Drive will create rush hour traffic jams in both directions in the morning and
afternoon, as residents leave for and return from work. The contention that most cars from the
Springs project will head directly east to US 41 is unsubstantiated. Many commuters who work in
the City of Naples or north on US 41 will likely head west on Thomasson and then north on
Bayshore to avoid US 41 traffic. Due to the area's remoteness from major business areas, the
number of residents who might resort to bicycles and busses will be quite small. The traffic safety
and density concerns are compounded by the presence of growing amenities, including the East
Naples Community (County) Park and pickleball facility, and the Naples Botanical Garden, as well
as Avalon Elementary School, with hours coinciding with the morning rush (including the
associated school bus activity and many children walking to school). The expansion of existing
communities, such as the Isles of Collier Preserve, future development of at least three new
residential communities, the growth of existing communities, and the possible addition of a
second school on Thomasson will create additional havoc on a road system not equipped to
handle all this increased traffic.
I have not seen any plans or commitments from the developer or the County to expand
Thomasson Drive to handle the increased traffic flow. The Springs project should be rejected, or
at least delayed, until a new or updated traffic study and plan is developed for safely handling the
traffic generated by this project and the rest of the proposed development along Thomasson.
This should also include the development of the part of Thomasson that runs from Avalon School
to US 41, which does not appear to be considered in the current proposals or by the CRA.
Landscaping and Aesthetics
As far as landscaping and aesthetics of the Springs project is concerned, the landscaping
proposed by the developer, especially along Thomasson Drive, is woefully lacking. As seen in
the photos of a similar Springs project in Estero (the nearest Springs community), the developer's
plan for a plain, five-foot black aluminum fence and some shrubs along a very narrow buffer
between Thomasson and the project's massive surface parking lot (in the complex, approximately
6864 BEQUTA WAY
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34113
Timothy Finn, Principal Planner
Collier Country Planning Commission
January 8, 2018 Page 2
93% of all parking is open street parking) is completely inadequate, both for aesthetic and
security purposes. There is nothing in the Sabal Bay project plans that suggest anything different
than their Estero property; in fact, the developer has said that their projects are pretty much the
same. Moreover, as you are aware, there is no apparent landscaping plan in place for
Thomasson Drive west of the school to US41. Shouldn't the development of the Springs property
be consistent with the overall aesthetic plan for Thomasson before building starts?
Based on a standard parking space size, it's pretty clear that a large amount of the project
acreage will be devoted to asphalt parking, almost the size of the retention pond. And that's not
counting other areas of the property that will be paved over. As you can see by the photos of the
Springs project in Estero, this creates a sea of asphalt for parking. The lack of greenery,
especially for masking the outdoor parking, is appalling, and the clustering of most of the open
parking along Thomasson Drive is in conflict with a design vision that should be associates with a
..gateway" entrance to so many amenities and public resources.
I have not seen any commitment from the developer to seriously address the aesthetics of the
Springs project, especially as it appears from Thomasson Drive. More green space between the
parking area and Thomasson is very much needed so as to plant an adequate, mature green
screen. Furthermore, I have seen no plans or commitment for landscaping and lighting the
median on Thomasson, which adds to the negative aesthetic of the area. The Springs project
should be rejected, or at least delayed, until an adequate landscaping plan for the project, and
adjacent public areas, especially along the entire length of Thomasson Drive (including its
entrance off of US 41), is approved, funded and scheduled, and is supported by all parties that
are working hard to enhance the East Naples community.
I know that I speak for many others in the area who are concerned that the development of the
Thomasson/Bayshore area does not appear to include the eastern part of Thomasson, from the
school to US 41, and that the Springs project does little to advance the vision for the area. In
fact, it detracts from it. The Country has a great opportunity to build upon what has already been
done, but in order to do so, it should demand a lot more from a developer who wants to
participate in the area's growth.
Thank you.
Marc Rosenberg
6864 Bequia Way
Naples, FL 34113
(908) 419-1178
marc@marcrosenberg.com
Timothy Finn, Principal Planner
Collier Country Planning Commission
January 8, 2018 Page 3
Photographs
Photographs of the Springs Apartments in Estero, Florida, were taken in December 2017 and
January 2018. In summary, it appears that the developer has adequately landscaped the areas
around the buildings, but has not adequately landscaped the areas around the parking lots, thus
making it impossible to hide the large asphalt areas of the project, and the large parking lot from
view along adjacent roadways and development, similar to the situation on Thomasson Drive.
Photo 1: The entrance to the development is
nicely landscaped.
Photo 3: Here you can see the large parking
area similar to what is proposed on the
Thomasson side of the project.
Photo 2: Where there is a large buffer between
the buildings and the street, the landscaping is
adequate.
Photo 4: Another view of outdoor parking with
garages.
Photo 5: Landscaping around the perimeter of
the property, where there are no housing units,
is inadequate to mask the parking lot from view.
Timothy Finn, Principal Planner
Collier Country Planning Commission
January8, 2018 Page 4
Photo 6: This view, from outside the Estero
property, shows the lack of landscaping around
the perimeter of the property. This is due to the
very small "green" strip, and is precisely what is
proposed for the Thomasson side of the project,
thus making adequate masking of the parking lot
impossible.
AGENDA ITEM 9-D
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO. 2018 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 200441, 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 A RURAL AGRICULTURAL
(A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN
AS 15501 OLD US 41 CPUD; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF OLD US 41, APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF
THE US 41 AND OLD US 41 INTERSECTION, IN SECTION 10,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. [PL20170001083]
WHEREAS, Ultimate Developments, LLC and DCG&B, LLC, represented by Alexis
Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, 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 10,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural Agricultural
(A) Zoning District to a Commercial Use Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District to
allow for development of up to 40,000 square feet of commercial development to be known as 15501
Old US 41 CPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number
2004-41, 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.
[17 -CPS -01688/1385558/1] 66
15501 Old US 4 1 /PL20170001083
12n7/17 Page 1 of 2
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2018.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Exhibit A:
Permitted Uses
Exhibit B:
Development Standards
Exhibit C:
Master Plan
Exhibit D:
Legal Description
Exhibit E:
Requested Deviations from LDC
Exhibit F:
Developer Commitments
[ 17 -CPS -01688/1385558/1166
15501 Old US 4 1 IPL20170001083
12/27/17
Page 2 of 2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN
, Chairman
EXHIBIT A
LIST OF PERMITTED USES
15501 OLD US 41 CPUD
Development of the 15501 Old US 41 Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) shall
be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the Land
Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of
issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final
site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such
regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the
provisions of the most similar district shall apply.
COMMERCIAL PERMITTED USES (PARCELS A AND B)
No building or structure, or part thereof, up to an aggregate 40,000 square feet of gross
floor area, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than
the following:
A. Principal Uses and Structures:
1. All permitted uses listed under the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3)
2. Catalog and Mail Order Houses (Retail Miscellaneous, Group 5961) — limited to 7,500
square feet and limited to Parcel B
Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing
by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner pursuant to the process outlined in
the LDC.
B. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses including but not
limited to:
1. Customary accessory uses and structures
2. Caretaker's residence, subject to LDC Section 5.03.05, limited to one (1) dwelling unit
3. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities
4. Water management facilities
Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the
foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the process
outlined in the LDC.
C. Prohibited Uses
The following uses are prohibited within the CPUD:
1 . Tattoo/piercing parlors (7299)
2. Adult entertainment and sexually oriented businesses (7999)
3. Pawn shops (5932)
15501 Old US 41 Road CPUD
Last Revised: October 31, 2017
Page 1 of 9
PRESERVE PERMITTED USES:
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or uses, or land used, in
whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Use:
1. Preserve
B. Accessory Uses:
1. Uses subject to LDC section Allowable Uses within County required preserves
15501 Old US 41 Road CPUD
Last Revised: October 31, 2017
Page 2 of 9
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
15501 OLD US 41 CPUD
Development of the 15501 Old US 41 Road CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents
of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP)
in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final
subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work
authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide
developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply.
Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the 15501 Old US
41 Road 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 Site Development
Plan (SDP).
TABLE I
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(')
PERMITTED USES AND
STANDARDS
PRINCIPAL USES
ACCESSORY USES
Min. Lot Area
10,000 SF
N/A
Min. Lot Width
75'
N/A
Min. Lot Depth
100'
N/A
PUD BOUNDARY SETBACKS (EXTERNAL)
Old U.S. 41 25' SPS
North Boundary 25' SPS
South Boundary 20' SPS
SETBACKS (INTERNAL)
Front/Internal Drives(2�
10'
10'
Side
10'
SPS
Rear
10'
SPS
FPL Easement
0'
SPS
Canal
20'
SPS
Preserve
25'
SPS
Min. Distance Between
Principal Structures
1/2 Building Height
1
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Actual
Zoned
45'
35'
45'
35'
SPS = Same as Principal Structure
(1) All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.
(2) Front setback is measured from back of curb for private roads and accessways only.
15501 Old US 41 Road CPUD
Last Revised: October 31, 2017
Page 3 of 9
0
D
ZCL
Vg
CLV
Ex
H
m LUN
19
o0
C O
4. �
FUTURE LAND USE, URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT
ZONING: PUD (ARBOR LAKES)
EXISTING LAND USE: MULTI -FAMILY
15' TYPE 'B'
BUFFER
CPUD BOUNDARY
(PROPERTY BOUNDARY)
BUFFER
REQUIRED
----------I----------7
PARCEL'A' /
PAR04G
AR EA !
PROPOSED
INTERCONNECTI0 /
INTERNAL
TRACT ! A /
*F UNE CO�SS' /
PARCEL T —
y PARKING /
AREA
R)TURE LAND USE: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT
ZONING PUO(STERLNG OAKS)
EXISTING LAND USE. VACANT INDUSTRIAL
r f /
10' TYPE W
BUFFER f /
1 f ii
! i
f /
i !
f /
/
/ f
/ r
r
i r
f /
!, f
OPUD BOUNDARY
(PROPERTY
BOUNDARY)
1STYPE 1)'
ROW BUFFER
FUTURE LAND USE:
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
ZONING: I
EXISTING LAND USE
WAREHOUSE, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL
15' TYPE'D'
ROW BUFFER
p r- o'
p o 0
U C v
6 M m
y a°
o
Ef) t
�O
O
O
>
Ln
Ln O
J
LEGEND
epi
®MW
OO` 4A041
aom oE*ai*cw�
rwsoda awDro
MaMwva
R\WIll"M
YENCILAA AME W
p r- o'
p o 0
U C v
6 M m
y a°
o
Ef) t
�O
O
O
>
Ln
Ln O
J
GENERAL NOTES
1 THIS PIAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE THE LOCATION, S12E AND
CONFIGURATION OF BUILDING FOOTPR NTS• LAKES, AND PARKING
AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT THE TW OF SDP.
2. COM ERCLAL INTENSITY MAY NOT EXCEED 40,000 SF.
3, PARKING TO BE PROVIDED IN COMPLIANCE WRH LDC AT TW OF
SOP APPROVAL
4. 0.117± ACRES OF REOIARED PRESERVE TO BE PROVIDED ONSITE
WfTHIN OPEN PRESERVE AREAS. THE MINIMUM PRESERVE
RECILIIREMENT OF 0.117 ACRES IS BEING MET AND 1.17 ACRES IS
BEING PROVIDED ONSITE WITHN PRESOM AREAS.
5. INTERNAL COMMERCIAL. REQUIRED BUFFER PLANTINGS MAY BE
RELOCATED TO OTHER PERIMETER BUFFERS ON THE SITE AS PER
LDC SECTION 4115.02.C.7.
LAND USE SUMMARY
PARCEL'A'
PARCEL B"
TOTAL
PRESERVE 0.79 AC
0.38 AC
1.17 AC
FPL EASEMENT 0.55 AC
0.18 AC
0.73 AC
WATER MAX46EMENT 024 AC
0.05 AC
029 AC
COMMERCIAL 2.12 AC
0.54 AC
208 AC
TOTAL 3.70 AC
1.15 AC
4.85 AC
OPEN SPACE SUMMARY
TOTAL REOIARED 4.85 x 30% 1.46 AC
TOTAL PROVIDED 1 2.55 AC
WATER MANAGEWNT 1 0.29 AC
BUFFERS AND OTHER OPEN SPACE/PRESERVE 1 220 AC
0&"17 IREWSED PEA COLW YCOMMeM 115501 OLD US 41 ROAD CP
1027m REV Is® PER C0LXM CaA1lA WM I CLZNr FRANT. NORBERTO & DGC & & LLC
•• ... Win:: _ .a,I S
15501 Old US 41 Road CPUD
Last Revised: October 31, 2017
Page 5 of 9
EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
15501 OLD US 41 CPUD
That portion of the South 30 feet of the North Half (N 1 /2) of the North Half (N 1 /2) of the
Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) and the North 230 feet of the
South Half (S1 /2) of the North Half (N 1 /2) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1 /4) of the
Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) all in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, as lies West
of U.S. Highway 41, Public Records of Collier County, Florida (Property I.D. Number:
00143160001). Together with the South 100 feet of the South one-half (S1/2) of the North
one-half (N1/2) of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4), of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of
Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
15501 Old US 41 Road CPUD
Last Revised: October 31, 2017
Page 6 of 9
EXHIBIT E
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC
15501 OLD US 41 ROAD CPUD
No deviations are being requested.
15501 Old US 41 Road CPUD
Last Revised: October 31, 2017
Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT F
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
15501 OLD US 41 ROAD CPUD
1. PUD MONITORING
One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring
until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all
PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the
Managing Entity is Frank Norberto. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the
monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a
legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the
County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its
obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor
entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the
Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an
acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the
new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing
Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this
Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer
responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments.
2. TRANSPORTATION
A. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 216 two-way unadjusted PM
Peak Hour Trips.
B. SDP approval shall determine the uses to be constructed upon which fair share
proportional payments shall be determined.
C. Compensating right-of-way shall be provided at the time of SDP -Plat for the
required turn lanes, as applicable.
D. The development shall provide internal sidewalk and crosswalk connections, and
bicycle facilities.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL
A. The subject site contains approximately 1.17 acres of native vegetation, of which
10% (0.1 17 acres) is required to be preserved.
Where Parcel A is developed prior to Parcel B, or vice versa, the SDP plans must
demonstrate preserve in the general location shown on the CPUD master plan for
the respective parcel, and not the overall CPDD. The acreage shown on the SDP
plans must meet or exceed the minimum preserve requirement for the entire
CPUD.
15501 Old US 41 Road CPUD
Last Revised: October 31, 2017
Page 8of9
a. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any
rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit
if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed
by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state
or federal law.
All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before
commencement of the development.
15501 Old US 41 Road CPUD
Last Revised: October 31, 2017
Page 9of9
Attachment B
eY C;0 h.lty
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division
From: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division
Date: November 22, 2017
Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ - PL20170001083 (REV 3)
PETITION NAME: 15501 Old US 41 CPUD Rezone
REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to rezone the f4.85 -acre property from the A, Rural Agricultural District,
to CPUD, Commercial Planned Unit Development District, to allow a maximum of 40,000 square feet of
commercial uses (indicated on Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan); the uses are those allowed in the C-3, Commercial
Intermediate District, including one C-3 use exceeding the 5,000 s.f. cap (7,500 s.£ proposed for catalog and mail
order houses).
LOCATION: The subject site is comprised of two parcels located on the west side of Old US 41, approximately
one mile north of the US 41/01d US 41 intersection, in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, 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, the Urban
designation is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use
developments such as Planned Unit Developments (PUD). Certain industrial and commercial uses are also allowed
subject to criteria. The FLUE provision the petitioner is relying upon to achieve consistency is the Office and In-
fill Commercial Subdistrict; is listedbelow, followed by staff comments on each criterion in [bold text in brackets].
Office and In -fill Commercial Subdistrict:
The intent of this Subdistrict is to allow low intensity office commercial or infill commercial development on small
parcels within the Urban Mixed Use District located along arterial and collector roadways where residential
development, as allowed by the Density Rating System, may not be compatible or appropriate. Lower intensity
office commercial development attracts low traffic volumes on the abutting roadway(s) and is generally compatible
with nearby residential and commercial development. The criteria listed below must be met for any project utilizing
this Subdistrict. For purposes of this Subdistrict, "abuts" and "abutting" excludes intervening public street, easement
(other than utilities) or right-of-way, except for an intervening local street; and "commercial' refers to C-1 through
C-5 zoning districts and commercial components of PVDs,
a. The subject site is in the Urban -Mixed Use District. [Subject site is designated Urban Mixed -Use District.]
Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 4
b. The subject site abuts a road classified as an arterial or collector on the Collier County Functional Class Map, as
adopted in the Transportation Element. [Subject site abuts Old US 41, a principal arterial.]
c. A rezone to commercial zoning is requested for the subject property in its entirety, up to a maximum of 12 acres.
For a property greater than 12 acres in size, the balance of the property in excess of 12 acres is limited to an
environmental conservation easement or open space. Under this provision, "open space" shall not include water
management facilities unless said facilities are incorporated into a conservation or preservation area for the
purpose of enhancement of the conservation or preservation area. [Subject site is ±4.85 acres and this request
is to rezone the entire site to a Commercial PUD.]
d. The site abuts commercial zoning:
(i) On one side and that abutting commercial site is not within an infill Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use
District or the Urban Commercial District; or, [Subject site abuts the Arbor Lake Club PUD to the north,
developed with an apartment complex; and, an undeveloped industrial tract in the Sterling Oaks PUD
to the south which is not within an infill subdistrict (rather is deemed "consistent by policy" via FLUE
Policy 5.12).]
(ii) On both sides. [N/A]
e. The abutting commercial zoning may be in the unincorporated portion of Collier County or in a neighboring
jurisdiction. [The abutting industrial tract in Sterling Oaks PUD is within unincorporated Collier County.]
f The depth of the subject property in its entirety, or up to 12 acres for parcels greater than 12 acres in size, for
which commercial zoning is being requested, does not exceed the depth of the commercially zoned area on the
abutting parcel(s). Where the subject site abuts commercial zoning on both sides, and the depth of the
commercially zoned area is not the same on both abutting parcels, the Board of County Commissioners shall
have discretion in determining how to interpret the depth of the commercially zoned area which cannot be
exceeded, but in no case shall the depth exceed that on the abutting property with the greatest depth of
commercial area. This discretion shall be applied on a case-by-case basis. [The subject site comprises ±4.85
acres and abuts industrial zoning on one side and residential zoning on the other side. The subject site
does exceed the depth of the abutting PUD industrial zoning; however, the proposed Exhibit C, PUD
Master Plan, indicates the depth of the commercial development area will not exceed the abutting PUD
industrial parcel's depth (the balance of the site will contain open space, and a drainage canal within an
FPL easement). Staff's opinion is that this meets the intent of the criterion.]
g. Project uses are limited to office or low intensity commercial uses if the subject property abuts commercial
zoning on one side only. For property abutting commercial zoning on both sides, the project uses may include
those of the highest intensity abutting commercial zoning district. [The subject site abuts a PUD industrial
tract on one side and residential use on the other side so is subject to the "office or low intensity commercial
uses" limitation. Principal uses listed in Exhibit A are those in the C-3 District - including catalog and
mail order houses up to 7,500 s.f. rather than the cap of 5,000 s.f. listed in the C-3 Permitted Uses section
of the LDC, Land Development Code.]
h. The subject property in its entirety was not created to take advantage of this provision, evidenced by its creation
prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on October 28, 1997. [Per Collier County
Property Appraiser online data, both tax parcels comprising the subject site were created prior to 1997.1
i. For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting one side only:
(i) commercial zoning used pursuant to this Subdistrict shall only be applied one time and shall not be expanded,
except for aggregation of additional properties so long as all other criteria under this Subdistrict are met;
and,
[This is the first time this Subdistrict is being applied in this area.]
(ii) uses shall be limited so as to serve as a transitional use between the commercial zoning on one side and
non- commercial zoning on the other side. [The C-3 uses serve as a reasonable transition from the
industrial uses allowed to the south and the multi -family development to the north. However, the
Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Fl, 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 4
one industrial use does not. (Ina July 18, 2017 email, the petitioner indicates this use will be removed
from the proposed PUD in the second submittal.)]
j. For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting both sides, commercial zoning used pursuant to
this Subdistrict shall only be applied one time and shall not be expanded, except for aggregation of additional
properties so long as all other criteria under this Subdistrict are met. fn/al
k. Lands zoned for support medical uses pursuant to the "1/4 mile support medical uses" provision in the Urban
designation shall not be deemed "commercial zoning" for purposes of this Subdistrict. [n/al
1. Land adjacent to areas zoned C -I /T on the zoning atlas maps, or other commercial zoning obtained via the former
Commercial Under Criteria provision in the FLUE, shall not be eligible for a rezone under the Office and Infill
Commercial Subdistrict, except through aggregation as provided in Paragraphs i. and j. above. [n/al
m. For purposes of this Subdistrict, property abutting land zoned Industrial or Industrial PUD, abutting lands zoned
for Business Park uses pursuant to the Business Park Subdistrict, or abutting lands zoned for Research and
Technology Park uses pursuant to the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict, shall also qualify for
commercial zoning so long as all other criteria under the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict are met. [The
abutting property to the south is an Industrial tract in the Sterling Oaks PUD.]
n. At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer. [Central water and sewer
is available to the site.]
o. The project will be compatible with existing land uses and permitted future land uses on surrounding properties.
[Comprehensive Planning staff defer to Zoning Services staff for compatibility determination as part of
their review of the petition in its entirety.]
p. The maximum acreage eligible to be utilized for the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict within the Urban
Mixed Use District is 250 acres." [The total land area approved under this Subdistrict is far less than 250
acres.]
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the
following FLUE policies (in italics) are implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where
applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text].
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.6:
New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the
Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the
petition in its entirety.
Objective 7:
Objective 7 of the FLUE states: "Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to
the existing development character of the County, where applicable, and as follows: "
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 fronts on, and has access to, Old US 41, a principal arterial
road.]
Zoning Division - 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 4
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 proposed PUD Master Plan does not
show any loop roads within the project site. Given its small size and relatively narrow depth, provision of a
street system does not appear feasible.]
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 proposed PUD
Master Plan shows no interconnections with adjoining properties. To the north is a developed residential
PUD, and to the west is a preserve area in the Sterling Oaks PUD - and open space and drainage canal on
the western portion of the subject site; interconnections do not appear feasible. To the south is an industrial
tract in the Sterling Oaks PUD; given the small size and relatively shallow depth of the subject site, as well
as the limited development area due to the FPL easement/drainage canal and required open space, an
interconnection does not appear feasible. Comprehensive Planning leaves review of the Transportation
Element to Transportation Planning staff.]
Policy 7.4:
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend ofdensities, common
open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [This policy is mostly not applicable since
this is not a residential project. Open space is provided for as required by the LDC. No deviations for
sidewalks are proposed with the second submittal.]
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use
Element of the Growth Management Plan.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive planning Section
Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division
PUDZ-PL2017-1083 15501 Old US41 R3.docx
PUDZ-PL2017-1083 15501 Old US41 R3 GAMES Planning ServiceslConsistency Reviews120171PUDZ - sf&dwl1-22-17
Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 4
Memorandum
To: Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
From: Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager
Date: January 10, 2018
Re: 2017/18 LDC Amendment Cycle
There are 12 LDC amendments in the 2017/18 Amendment Cycle for review at the January 18,
2018, meeting. These amendments were reviewed by the Development Services Advisory
Committee (DSAC) on December 6, 2017, which unanimously recommend approval of each of
the amendments.
The list below indicates whether EAC review is required. If not indicated, only CCPC review is
required. Following the hearing on January 18, 2018, a second CCPC/EAC hearing is scheduled
for final review and approval of the LDC amendments on Wednesday, February 7, 2018, at 5:05
p.m.
LDC Section Amendment Description Pg.
Clarification Amendments
These amendments correct, clarify, or recodify existing LDC provisions to address issues identified by
County staff or the Board of County Commissioners.
LDC Sections 1.08.02
& 9.03.03
Re-codify the definition for “nonconforming lot of record.”
***Amendments to LDC Section 9.03.03 included in the public
notice have been withdrawn from consideration.***
3
LDC Sections 2.03.03
& 2.03.04
Establish martial arts, gymnastics, and dance as permitted uses in C-3
and Industrial Zoning Districts. 5
LDC Sections 2.03.07,
4.02.01, 4.02.03,
4.02.04 & 4.02.06
Clarify dimensional standards for accessory buildings and structures. 11
LDC Section 4.03.04 Clarify procedures for Lot Line Adjustments and Lot Splits. 25
LDC Section 10.01.02 Clarify the criteria for Early Work Authorizations. 29
LDC Sections 10.02.13
& 10.03.06
Clarify the Planned Unit Development Insubstantial Change (PDI)
approval process. 31
Update to Administrative Code Chapter 3 G.3-4. 35
Growth Management Plan (GMP) Consistency Amendments
These amendments address LDC provisions related to GMP policies and overlays which have changed
over time.
LDC Section 2.03.08 Modify the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and Rural Fringe Areas
map. EAC REVIEW REQUIRED 41
LDC Sections 2.03.08
& 3.05.07
Modify provisions related to the North Belle Meade Overlay specific
to Section 24, Township 49 South, and Range 26 East. 47
CCPC Page 1 of 75
LDC Section 4.02.14 &
Zoning maps
Modify the list of exotic species in Big Cypress Area of Critical State
Concern (ACSC). EAC REVIEW REQUIRED 49
Modify Zoning Maps 522930, 2033N, 2033S, 2034N & 2034S within
Township 52, South, Range 30 East to address changes to the State’s
ACSC designation. EAC REVIEW REQUIRED
51
New Standards
These amendments introduce new development standards or modify existing County processes.
LDC Section 6.01.05
Require soil erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices
for single family, two family, townhouses, and underground utility
construction. EAC REVIEW REQUIRED
61
LDC Section 9.04.04 Establish an exception from an Administrative Variance for Minor
After-the-Fact Encroachments. 65
LDC Section 10.02.09 Remove limits on text amendments to the Land Development Code. 67
Update to Administrative Code Chapter 2 B. 69
Summary Sheet 73
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Frantz, AICP
JeremyFrantz@colliergov.net
(239) 252-2305
CCPC Page 2 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Nonconforming lot of record\1.08.02 Definitions 1-11-18.docx
Land Development Code Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department
AUTHOR: Planning and Zoning Division Staff
LDC SECTION:1.08.02 Definitions
SUMMARY: This amendment reinstates the definition for a “nonconforming lot of record” as
previously codified by Ordinance 82-002 and amended by Ordinances 91-102 and 99-46.
DESCRIPTION: During recodification of the LDC in 2004, the definition of a “nonconforming
lot of record” as defined by Ordinance 82-002 and later by Ordinance 91-102 and 99-46, was
replaced with regulatory actions that are duplicated in LDC section 9.03.03 A.4. This amendment
recodifies the correct definition of “nonconforming lot of record.”
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended making specific reference to October 14, 1974, and retaining language identifying
that the Code may allow an additional split or subdividing a parcel. These recommendations were
incorporated in the amendment and the Subcommittee recommended approval on November 13,
2017.
DSAC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on
December 6, 2017, with no changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts
associated with this amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACTS: There are no anticipated Growth Management
Plan impacts associated with this amendment.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 1.08.02 Definitions
2 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3 Nonconforming lot of record: When two or more adjacent legal nonconforming lots of record are
4 either combined under a single folio or parcel number for taxing purposes by the property
5 appraiser's office or combined as a single parcel by recording the previously separate non-
6 conforming lots into one legal description, neither or both of these actions will prohibit the owner
7 or future owners from subsequently splitting the parcel into two or more folio or parcel numbers
8 for tax purposes, or severing the parcels into their former legal descriptions as legal non-
9 conforming lots of record according to the original legal description(s) at the time the property
10 was recognized as legal nonconforming. Prior to any two or more adjacent, legal non-
11 conforming lots being combined for development a legally binding document must be recorded
12 to reflect a single parcel with a unified legal description. Once such a document has been
13 recorded to amend the legal description and a development permit has been approved by the
14 County for development as that unified parcel, the property cannot be split or subdivided except
15 as may then be allowed by this Code. Any lawful lot or parcel which was recorded, or for which
CCPC Page 3 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Nonconforming lot of record\1.08.02 Definitions 1-11-18.docx
1 an agreement for deed was executed prior to October 14, 1974, and which lot or parcel does
2 not meet the minimum width or lot area requirements as a result of the passage of this Code
3 shall be considered as a legal nonconforming lot and shall be eligible for the issuance of a
4 building permit provided all the other requirements of this Code and the Florida Statues are met.
5 This definition also includes any lot or parcel made nonconforming by a rezoning initiated by
6 Collier County to implement the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance Number 90-23 (1990).
7 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 4 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Martial Arts, Dance Studios, Amusement & Recreation Services\2.03.03 Martial Arts-Dance
Instructions 1-10-18.docx
Land Development Code Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department
AUTHOR: Planning and Zoning Division Staff
LDC SECTION: 2.03.03 Commercial Zoning Districts
2.03.04 Industrial Zoning Districts
SUMMARY: This amendment clarifies “martial arts” and “dance, gymnastics, judo, and karate
instructions,” are permitted uses in the C-3 and Industrial Zoning Districts where physical fitness
facilities are also permitted uses. It also clarifies that outdoor amusement and recreation services
are conditional uses in the C-3 Zoning District and reinstates an omitted Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Code in the C-4 Zoning District.
DESCRIPTION: Since 2006, staff has relied on an administrative memorandum that was issued
to allow certain forms of physical fitness uses, including martial arts, dance, gymnastics, judo, and
karate instruction in the C-3 and Industrial zoning districts (Exhibit A). However, they have not
been officially codified as permitted uses in the LDC. The administrative memoranda are not well
known to the public which results in frequent questions to staff regarding the availability of these
uses in these zoning districts. The amendment proposes to codify the staff policy of considering
these physical fitness uses as permitted uses in the C-3 zoning district and to clarify the limitation
on physical fitness facilities in the Industrial zoning district.
Additionally, this amendment clarifies in LDC section 2.03.03 C.1.c. that the conditional use
“Amusement and Recreation Services,” in the C-3 zoning district is for outdoor uses only. Also,
the amendment reinstates SIC Code number 7999 in the C-4 zoning district which was
inadvertently omitted when Ordinance 08-11 was adopted.
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on November 13, 2017, with no changes.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval December 6, 2017, with no
changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no fiscal or operational impacts that are
anticipated with this amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACTS: There are no Growth Management Plan
impacts associated with this amendment.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 2.03.03 - Commercial Zoning Districts
2 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3 C. Commercial Intermediate District (C-3). The purpose and intent of the commercial
4 intermediate district (C-3) is to provide for a wider variety of goods and services intended
CCPC Page 5 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Martial Arts, Dance Studios, Amusement & Recreation Services\2.03.03 Martial Arts-Dance
Instructions 1-10-18.docx
1 for areas expected to receive a higher degree of automobile traffic. The type and variety
2 of goods and services are those that provide an opportunity for comparison shopping,
3 have a trade area consisting of several neighborhoods, and are preferably located at the
4 intersection of two-arterial level streets. Most activity centers meet this standard. This
5 district is also intended to allow all of the uses permitted in the C-1 and C-2 zoning
6 districts typically aggregated in planned shopping centers. This district is not intended to
7 permit wholesaling type of uses, or land uses that have associated with them the need
8 for outdoor storage of equipment and merchandise. A mixed-use project containing a
9 residential component is permitted in this district subject to the criteria established
10 herein. The C-3 district is permitted in accordance with the locational criteria for
11 commercial and the goals, objectives, and policies as identified in the future land use
12 element of the Collier County GMP. The maximum density permissible in the C-3 district
13 and the urban mixed use land use designation shall be guided, in part, by the density
14 rating system contained in the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. The
15 maximum density permissible or permitted in the C-3 district shall not exceed the density
16 permissible under the density rating system.
17 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial
18 Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are
19 permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial
20 intermediate district (C-3).
21 a.Permitted uses.
22 1. Accounting (8721).
23 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322).
24 3. Advertising agencies (7311).
25 4. Amusement and recreation services, indoor (7999- martial arts,
26 yoga and gymnastics instruction, gymnastic schools, and
27 recreation involving physical fitness exercise only).
28 4. 5. Animal specialty services, except veterinary (0752, excluding
29 outside kenneling).
30 5. 6. Apparel and accessory stores (5611—5699) with 5,000 square
31 feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure.
32 Note: ALL REMAINING SUBSECTIONS TO BE RENUMBERED ACCORDINGLY
33 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
34 c.Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses
35 in the commercial intermediate district (C-3), subject to the standards and
36 procedures established in sections 4.02.02 and 10.08.00.
37 1. Amusements and recreation services, outdoor (7999 - boat rental,
38 miniature golf course, bicycle, and moped rental, rental of beach
39 chairs and accessories only).
40 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
41 D. General Commercial District (C-4). The general commercial district (C-4) is intended to
42 provide for those types of land uses that attract large segments of the population at the
43 same time by virtue of scale, coupled with the type of activity. The purpose and intent of
44 the C-4 district is to provide the opportunity for the most diverse types of commercial
45 activities delivering goods and services, including entertainment and recreational
46 attractions, at a larger scale than the C-1 through C-3 districts. As such, all of the uses
47 permitted in the C-1 through C-3 districts are also permitted in the C-4 district. The
48 outside storage of merchandise and equipment is prohibited, except to the extent that it
49 is associated with the commercial activity conducted on-site such as, but not limited to,
50 automobile sales, marine vessels, and the renting and leasing of equipment. Activity
51 centers are suitable locations for the uses permitted by the C-4 district because most
CCPC Page 6 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
3
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Martial Arts, Dance Studios, Amusement & Recreation Services\2.03.03 Martial Arts-Dance
Instructions 1-10-18.docx
1 activity centers are located at the intersection of arterial roads. Therefore the uses in the
2 C-4 district can most be sustained by the transportation network of major roads. The C-4
3 district is permitted in accordance with the locational criteria for uses and the goals,
4 objectives, and policies as identified in the future land use element of the Collier County
5 GMP. The maximum density permissible or permitted in a district shall not exceed the
6 density permissible under the density rating system.
7 1. The following uses, as defined with a number from the Standard Industrial
8 Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are
9 permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the general
10 commercial district (C-4).
11 a. Permitted uses.
12 1. Accounting (8721).
13 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322).
14 3. Advertising agencies (7311).
15 4. Advertising — miscellaneous (7319).
16 5. Agricultural services (0783).
17 6. Amusement and recreation services, indoor (7999).
18 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
19
20 2.03.04 – Industrial Zoning Districts
21 A. Industrial District (I). The purpose and intent of the industrial district (I) is to provide lands
22 for manufacturing, processing, storage and warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution.
23 Service and commercial activities that are related to manufacturing, processing, storage
24 and warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution activities, as well as commercial uses
25 relating to automotive repair and heavy equipment sales and repair are also permissible
26 in the I district. The I district corresponds to and implements the industrial land use
27 designation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP.
28 1. The following uses, as identified within the Standard Industrial Classification
29 Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section, are permitted as
30 a right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the industrial district (I).
31 a. Permitted uses.
32 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
33 *
34 39. Physical fitness facilities, (7911 except Discotheques, 7991, 7999
35 - limited to baseball instruction, basketball instruction, gymnastics
36 instruction, judo instruction, karate instruction, and martial arts
37 instruction, yoga instruction, gymnastic schools, and recreation
38 involving physical fitness exercise only).
39 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 7 of 75
CCPC Page 8 of 75
CCPC Page 9 of 75
CCPC Page 10 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
Land Development Code Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Board of Zoning Appeals and Growth Management Department Staff
AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff
LDC SECTIONS:2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts
4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning
Districts
4.02.03 Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and
Structures
4.02.04 Standards for Cluster Residential Design
4.02.06 Standards for Development in Airport Zones
SUMMARY: This amendment reorganizes the dimensional standards tables for accessory
structures to clarify and correct several provisions and highlight swimming pool and screen
enclosure setbacks.
DESCRIPTION:
Changes to LDC section 2.03.07
This amendment removes references to tables that are removed by this amendment’s changes to
LDC section 4.02.04.
Changes to LDC section 4.02.01
This amendment clarifies that the allowance for setback encroachments for permanent emergency
generators for single-family residences also applies to multi-family and non-residential buildings.
This change represents staff’s current application of setbacks to permanent emergency generators
for multi-family and non-residential buildings.
Changes to LDC section 4.02.04
Currently, setbacks for accessory buildings and structures are located within two tables that are
difficult to use and contain inconsistencies and missing information. This amendment merges the
tables into one for clarity and usability and includes the following changes:
1.Carports: Currently the tables identify the same setbacks for carports and parking garages.
However, LDC section 4.02.01 D.12 allows setback encroachments for carports which are
open on all sides in commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential developments.
This amendment separates carports from parking garages in the table, includes a cross-
reference to LDC section 4.02.01 D in the notes, and identifies the same standards apply
to two-family dwelling units for clarity. Additionally, the rear setback for commercial,
industrial, and multi-family carports is changed from “35 feet” to “SPS” (Same as Principal
Structure) for consistency with the rear setback for one-story and multi-story parking
structures, as described in the next section.
2.One-story and multi-story parking structures: The following two changes to the
required setbacks for one-story and multi-story parking structures are included:
CCPC Page 11 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
a) One-story and multi-story parking structures are currently listed separately, but have
the same required setbacks, except for the structure to structure setbacks which are
as follows:
One-story parking structures: 10 feet
Multi-story parking structures: 1 foot of accessory height = 1 foot of
building separation (1/1)
Since one-story parking structures are typically 10 feet in height or less, these two
standards are effectively the same. Additionally, any one-story parking structure that
is more than 10 feet in height should have the same structure-to-structure setback as
any other parking structure that is more than 10 feet in height. Therefore, this
amendment combines these two items in the table and modifies the structure to
structure setback to “1/1 with a minimum of 10 feet.”
b) Currently, the rear setback for one- or multi-story parking structures on non-
waterfront and non-golf course lots is 35 feet. However, the rear setback on
waterfront or golf course lots are the same as the principal structure (SPS).
Additionally, a 35-foot rear setback is greater than the rear setback for the principal
structure in several zoning districts. Therefore, the rear setbacks for one- and multi-
family parking structures on non-waterfront and non-golf course lots are changed
from “35 feet” to “SPS.”
3.Parking garage (one- and two-family): Currently, only setbacks for detached parking
garages for single-family dwelling units are identified, while two-family dwelling units
that include detached parking garages are not listed. This amendment codifies the same
setback for detached parking garages whether the principal structure is a one-family or
two-family use, consistent with staff’s current application of this section.
4.Permanent emergency generators: Currently, the side setback for permanent emergency
generators includes a cross-reference to LDC section 4.02.01 D.13, which allows
encroachments of up to 36 inches into the side setback. However, the setback itself is not
identified. This amendment clarifies that the side setback for permanent emergency
generators is the same as the principal structure (SPS) and includes a cross-reference to
LDC section 4.02.01 D in the notes.
5.Tennis courts (private) (one- and two-family): The “(private)” designation is removed
from tennis courts for one- and two-family. Public tennis courts are not an accessory use
to one- and two-family structures so the distinction is unnecessary.
6.Trellises, arbors, and similar structures: Trellises, arbors, and similar structures are not
currently listed in the tables. Instead, staff uses a 2007 administrative memorandum when
applying setbacks to these structures (Exhibit A). Consistent with the 2007 memo, this
amendment adds two setback requirements for trellises, arbors, and similar structures
which vary depending on whether the structure exceeds the maximum fence height for the
respective zoning district.
CCPC Page 12 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
3
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
7.Attached screen porches, swimming pools and screen enclosures: Currently, setbacks
for attached screen porches and swimming pools and screen enclosures on waterfront lots
and golf course lots include a lengthy and confusing note. Additionally, setbacks for
swimming pools and screen enclosures were the subject of a variance request heard by the
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on February 28, 2017 (See Agenda Item 8.A). At the
meeting, it was noted that the pool and screen enclosure standards are currently contained
in multiple tables and notes in the LDC, making them easy to overlook. In response, the
BZA directed staff to proceed with an LDC amendment to clarify these tables. This
amendment relocates the notes for attached screen porches and pools and screen enclosures
into the new table for clarity.
The setbacks are also modified to remove a reference to Marco Island. Setbacks for
swimming pools and screen enclosures were modified by Ordinance No. 97-2. Marco
Island had not yet incorporated at the time the ordinance was adopted, so the provision in
Table 4 - Note 3 included standards applicable to Marco Island. When Marco Island
incorporated later in 1997, the standards no longer applied to the City of Marco Island,
therefore, the reference to Marco Island is removed.
Additionally, the word “screen” is removed from attached screen porch because attached
porches should have the same setback whether they have a screen or not.
8.Chickee, barbecue areas: Currently the structure-to-structure setback for “chickee,
barbecue areas” is “10 feet” on non-waterfront and non-golf course lots and “None” for
waterfront and golf course lots. The structure-to-structure setback for waterfront and golf
course lots is changed to “10 feet” to be consistent with the same structures on non-
waterfront and non-golf course lots and for fire safety.
9.Davits, hoists, and lifts: On waterfront lots and golf course lots, the structure-to-structure
setback is changed from “SPS” to “None.” Davits, hoists, and lifts are often situated in
close proximity to, or work in conjunction with, other boathouses, docks, or other
shorefront facilities, therefore, it is not appropriate to apply a structure-to-structure setback
to these accessory structures.
10.Dock facilities and boathouses: Currently, side setback requirements for dock facilities
and boathouses are listed as “7.5 feet or 15” feet. However, setback requirements for dock
facilities and boathouses are established in LDC sections 5.03.06 E and F. This amendment
replaces setbacks of “7.5 feet or 15” feet with a cross-reference to LDC sections 5.03.06 E
and F to clarify where the setbacks are established.
11.Notes:
a.Removed abbreviations: The abbreviations “N” and
“NP” have been written out within the table to reduce the number of notes.
b.Accessory structures in Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E) zoning
districts: Currently, both tables include a note regarding accessory structures in A
and E zoning districts. This note has been relocated to the new LDC section 4.02.03
CCPC Page 13 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
4
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
C and a new cross-reference has been added to LDC section 4.02.07 for standards
for accessory structures related to keeping animals and livestock. This makes the
standard easier to recognize and eliminates duplicative notes.
c.“SPS” designation: Currently, the abbreviation “SPS” is defined as “Same as
principal structure.” This note has been modified to clarify that the setback relates
to the standards for the zoning district.
d. “NP” designation: Currently, the front setback for permanent emergency
generators and satellite dish antennas in both tables are listed as “NP.” The notes
for each table indicate that “NP” means “Structure allowed in rear of building
only.” However, these structures are also allowed on the sides of buildings. This
amendment clarifies the structure or use is “not permitted in front of building”
within the table, rather than as a note.
e.All asterisks are changed to numbers: Currently, several footnotes are indicated
using asterisks. This amendment replaces all asterisks with numbers for clarity.
Changes to LDC sections 4.02.04 and 4.02.06
Since this amendment removes Tables 2 and 3 from LDC Chapter 4, the remaining tables in LDC
sections 4.02.04 and 4.02.06 must be renumbered. No other changes are made to these sections.
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
made recommendations for additional clarification to the notes and cross-references, which were
incorporated into the amendment. The Subcommittee recommended approval on November 13,
2017.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on December 6, 2017, with
no changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal and operational
impacts associated with this amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There are no anticipated Growth Management
Plan impacts associated with this amendment.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1
2 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts
3 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4 G. Immokalee Urban Overlay District. To create the Immokalee Urban Overlay District with
5 distinct subdistricts for the purpose of establishing development criteria suitable for the
6 unique land use needs of the Immokalee Community. The boundaries of the Immokalee
7 Urban Overlay District are delineated on the maps below.
8 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9 7.Interim Deviations: Property owners within the Immokalee Urban Overlay District
10 may request deviations from specific dimensional requirements as described in
CCPC Page 14 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
5
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
1 this section. A deviation request may be reviewed administratively or by the
2 Planning Commission depending upon its scope. This section addresses the
3 permissible deviations, limitations thereon, and the review process.
4 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5 e.Applicability - List of Development Standards Eligible for Deviation
6 Requests. Property owners shall be eligible to seek a deviation from the
7 dimensional requirements of the following Code provisions, unless
8 otherwise noted.
9 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10 vii. 4.02.03 A Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings
11 and Structures, Dimensional Standards (Tables 3 and 4), except
12 that in the case of new development on commercial parcels, no
13 deviation shall be granted from the required 50-foot building
14 setback when abutting residentially zoned properties, or from the
15 minimum 10-foot wide landscaped strip between the abutting road
16 right-of-way and the off-street parking area. Deviations from these
17 requirements may be considered in the case of redevelopment
18 where existing structures and/or encroachments are proposed to
19 remain.
20 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
21
22 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts
23 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
24 D. Exemptions and exclusions from design standards.
25 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
26 13. Permanent emergency generators may be placed within the rear yard of any
27 property supporting a permitted single-family residence, subject to a 10-foot rear
28 yard setback, and within side yards subject to a maximum encroachment into the
29 setback of 36 inches. Generators are not permitted to encroach into required
30 front yards. Above-ground fuel tanks for the generators are subject to the same
31 setbacks; however, underground tanks are not subject to setback requirements.
32 In order to reduce noise during required routine exercising of the generators, this
33 exercising is restricted to operating the generator for no more than 30 minutes
34 weekly during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and shall not exceed sound
35 level limits for Manufacturing and Industrial uses as set forth in Ordinance 90-17,
36 the Noise Ordinance, as amended. All permanent emergency generators must
37 be equipped with sound attenuating housing to reduce noise.
38 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
39
40 4.02.03 Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures
41 A. For the purposes of this section, in order to determine yard requirements, the term
42 "accessory structure" shall include detached and attached accessory use structures or
43 buildings notwithstanding the attachment of such structure or building containing the
44 accessory use to the principal use structure or building. Accessory buildings and
45 structures must be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the
46 principal structure and shall conform with the following setbacks and building
47 separations.
48 Table 3. Dimensional Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures on Non-
49 Waterfront Lots And Non-Golf Course Lots in Zoning Districts other than Rural
50 Agricultural (A) and Estates (E)**.
Front Rear Side Structure to
CCPC Page 15 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
6
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
Structure
(If Detached)
1. Parking garage or carport, single-family SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet
2. One-story parking structures and/or carports SPS 35 feet SPS 10 feet
3. Multistory parking structures SPS 35 feet SPS 1/1*
4. Swimming pool and/or screen enclosure
(one- and two-family) SPS 10 feet SPS N
5. Swimming pool (multi-family and
commercial) SPS 20 feet 15 feet N
6. Tennis courts (private) (one- and two-family) SPS 15 feet SPS 10 feet
7. Tennis courts (multi-family, and commercial) SPS 20 feet 15 feet 20 feet
8. Utility buildings SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet
9. Chickee, barbecue areas SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet
10. Attached screen porch SPS 10 feet SPS N/A
11. Unlisted accessory SPS SPS SPS 10 feet
12. Satellite dish antenna NP 15 feet SPS 10 feet
13. Permanent emergency generators NP 10 feet See Sec.
4.02.01 D.13 N/A
1
2 N = None.
3 N/A = Not applicable.
4 NP = Structure allowed in rear of building only.
5 SPS = Calculated same as principal structure.
6 * = 1 foot of accessory height = 1 foot building separation.
7 ** = All accessory structures in Rural Agricultural and Estates zoning districts must meet
8 principal structure setbacks.
9
10 Table 4. Dimensional Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures on Waterfront Lots
11 and Golf Course Lots in Zoning Districts other than Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E)** 2
Setbacks
Front Rear Side
Structure to
structure
(If Detached)
1. Parking garage or carport, single-family SPS SPS SPS 10 feet
2. One-story parking structures SPS SPS SPS 10 feet
3. Multistory parking structures SPS SPS SPS 1/1 1
4. Swimming pool and/or screen enclosure
(one- and two-family) SPS 10 feet 3 SPS N
5. Swimming pool (multi-family and
commercial) SPS 20 feet 15 feet N
6. Tennis courts (private) (one- and two-
family) SPS 15 feet SPS 10 feet
7. Tennis courts (multi-family and commercial) SPS 35 feet SPS 20 feet
8. Boathouses and boat shelters (private) SPS N/A 7.5 feet or 15
feet 10 feet
See subsection 5.03.06F.
9. Utility buildings SPS SPS 10 feet 10 feet
10. Chickee, barbecue areas SPS 10 feet SPS N
11. Davits, hoists and lifts N/A N/A 7.5 feet or 15 SPS
CCPC Page 16 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
7
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
feet
12. Attached screen porch SPS 10 feet 4 SPS SPS
13. Unlisted accessory SPS SPS SPS 10 feet
14. Docks, decks and mooring pilings N/A N/A 7.5 feet or 15
feet N/A
15. Boat slips and ramps (private) N/A N/A 7.5 feet N/A
16. Satellite dish antennas NP 15 feet SPS 10 feet
17. Permanent emergency generators NP 10 feet See Sec.
4.02.01 D.13 N/A
18. Golf clubhouse and maintenance buildings 5 50
feet 50 feet 50 feet N/A
1
2 N = None.
3 N/A = Not applicable.
4 NP = Structure allowed in rear of building only.
5 SPS = Calculated same as principal structure.
6 ** = All accessory structures in Rural Agricultural and Estates zoning districts must meet
7 principal structure setbacks.
8 1 1 foot of accessory height = 1 foot of building separation.
9 2 In those cases where the coastal construction control line is involved, the coastal
10 construction control line will apply.
11 3 20 feet where swimming pool decks exceed 4 feet in height above top of seawall or top of
12 bank, except Marco Island and Isles of Capri which may construct to a maximum of seven feet
13 above the seawall with a maximum of four feet of stem wall exposure, with the rear setback of
14 ten feet.
15 4 20 feet where floor or deck of porch exceeds 4 feet in height above top of seawall or top of
16 bank, except Marco Island and Isles of Capri which may construct to a maximum of seven feet
17 above the seawall with a maximum of four feet of stem wall exposure, with the rear setback of
18 ten feet.
19 5 The setback shall apply to external boundaries of the golf course district, and shall be
20 inclusive of separately platted buffer tracts.
21
22 B. Accessory buildings shall not occupy an area greater than five (5) percent of the total
23 lot area in all residential zoning districts, or occupy an area greater than forty (40)
24 percent of any building envelope (i.e., area of lot remaining for building purposes after
25 accounting for required setbacks), whichever is the lesser, provided the total maximum
26 coverage provision of this ordinance for all principal and accessory buildings is not
27 exceeded. Nothing herein contained shall serve to prevent the construction of an
28 accessory building containing an area of less than 500 square feet provided all yard
29 and building spacing requirements can be met.
30 C. All accessory structures in Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E) zoning districts must
31 meet principal structure setbacks. For accessory structures related to the keeping of
32 animals and livestock in these districts, see LDC section 4.02.07.
33 D. Table of dimensional standards for accessory buildings and structures in zoning districts
34 other than Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E):
35
CCPC Page 17 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
8
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
Setbacks
Location Accessory Building/Structure Front Rear Side
Structure to
Structure
(If
Detached)
Attached porch SPS 10 feet SPS N/A
Carports (commercial,
industrial, and multi-family)1 SPS SPS SPS 10 feet
Carports (one- and two-family)SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet
Chickee, barbecue areas SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet
One-story and multi-story
parking structures SPS SPS SPS
1/12 with a
minimum of
10 feet
Parking garage (one- and two-
family)SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet
Permanent emergency
generators1
Not
permitted
in front
yard
10 feet SPS N/A
Satellite dish antennas
Not
permitted
in front
yard
15 feet SPS 10 feet
Swimming pool and/or screen
enclosure (one- and two-
family)
SPS 10 feet SPS None
Swimming pool (multi-family
and commercial)SPS 20 feet 15 feet None
Tennis courts (one- and two-
family)SPS 15 feet SPS 10 feet
Tennis courts (multi-family,
and commercial)SPS 20 feet 15 feet 20 feet
Trellises, arbors, and similar
structures that do not exceed
the maximum fence height in
LDC section 5.03.02
None None None None
Trellises, arbors, and similar
structures that exceed the
maximum fence height in LDC
section 5.03.02
SPS 10 feet SPS None
Unlisted accessory SPS SPS SPS 10 feet
Non-
Waterfront
Lots and
Non-Golf
Course
Lots
Utility buildings SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet
Waterfront
Lots and
Golf
Course
Lots3
Attached porch where floor or
deck of porch are:
In Isles of Capri: Seven
feet in height or less
above the top of seawall
SPS 10 feet SPS SPS
CCPC Page 18 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
9
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
with a maximum of four
feet of stem wall exposure
In all other areas: Four
feet in height or less
above top of seawall or
top of bank
Attached porch where floor or
deck of porch are:
In Isles of Capri: More
than seven feet in height
above the top of seawall or
with more than four feet of
stem wall exposure
In all other areas: More
than four feet in height
above top of seawall or top
of bank
SPS 20 feet SPS SPS
Boat slips and ramps (private)N/A N/A 7.5 feet N/A
Boathouses and boat shelters
(private)SPS N/A
See
LDC
sections
5.03.06
E and F
10 feet
Carports (commercial,
industrial, and multi-family)1 SPS SPS SPS 10 feet
Carports (one- and two-
family)SPS SPS SPS 10 feet
Chickee, barbecue areas SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet
Davits, hoists, and lifts N/A N/A
See
LDC
sections
5.03.06
E and F
None
Docks, decks, and mooring
pilings N/A N/A
See
LDC
sections
5.03.06
E and F
N/A
Golf clubhouse and
maintenance buildings4 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet N/A
One-story and multi-story
parking structures SPS SPS SPS
1/12 with a
minimum of
10 feet
Parking garage (one- and two-
family)SPS SPS SPS 10 feet
Permanent emergency
generators1
Not
permitted
in front
yard
10 feet SPS N/A
CCPC Page 19 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
10
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
Satellite dish antennas
Not
permitted
in front
yard
15 feet SPS 10 feet
Swimming pool and/or screen
enclosure (one- and two-
family) where swimming pool
decks are:
In Isles of Capri: Seven
feet in height or less above
the top of seawall with a
maximum of four feet of
stem wall exposure
In all other areas: Four
feet in height or less above
top of seawall or top of
bank
SPS 10 feet SPS None
Swimming pool and/or screen
enclosure (one- and two-
family) where swimming pool
decks are:
In Isles of Capri: More
than seven feet in height
above the top of seawall or
with more than four feet of
stem wall exposure
In all other areas: More
than four feet in height
above top of seawall or top
of bank
SPS 20 feet SPS None
Swimming pool (multi-family
and commercial)SPS 20 feet 15 feet None
Tennis courts (private) (one-
and two-family)SPS 15 feet SPS 10 feet
Tennis courts (multi-family
and commercial)SPS 35 feet SPS 20 feet
Trellises, arbors, and similar
structures that do not exceed
the maximum fence height in
LDC section 5.03.02
None None None None
Trellises, arbors, and similar
structures that exceed the
maximum fence height in LDC
section 5.03.02
SPS 10 feet SPS None
Unlisted accessory SPS SPS SPS 10 feet
Utility buildings SPS SPS 10 feet 10 feet
1
2
CCPC Page 20 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
11
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
1 Notes:
2 SPS = Calculated same as principal structure for the zoning district.
3 1 See LDC section 4.02.01 D for exemptions and exclusions from required yards.
4 2 1 foot of accessory height = 1 foot of building separation.
5 3 In those cases where the coastal construction control line is involved, the coastal
6 construction control line will apply.
7 4 The setback shall apply to external boundaries of the golf course district, and shall be
8 inclusive of separately platted buffer tracts.
9 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
10
11 4.02.04 Standards for Cluster Residential Design
12 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13 C. Conditional uses approved for cluster development may reduce the lot area, lot width,
14 and yard requirements within a zoning district, subject to the criteria enumerated in this
15 section. The lot area, lot width, coverage, and yard regulations of the residential zoning
16 district in which the cluster development is located shall be used as the basis for all
17 computations of allowed reductions. The following reductions in lot area, lot width,
18 coverage and yard regulations of the underlying zoning district shall be permissible
19 pursuant to the grant of a conditional use for cluster development.
20 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
21 2. The following site design and dimensional standards shall apply to cluster
22 development:
23 Table 53. Table of Design Standards for Cluster Development.
24 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
25
26 4.02.06 Standards for Development in Airport Zones
27 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
28 D. The width of each primary surface is as follows:
29 Table 64. Primary Surface Width
30 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
31 E. Horizontal zone. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation,
32 the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs for specified radii from the
33 center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and
34 connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is
35 as follows:
36 Table 75. Horizontal Zone Radius
37 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
38 H. Approach zone. The approach zone is an area longitudinally centered on the extended
39 runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary
40 surface. An approach zone is designated for the end of each runway based upon the
41 type of approach available or planned for that runway end.
42 1. Approach zone width. The inner edge of the approach zone is the same width
43 as the primary surface. The outer width of the approach zone is prescribed for
44 the most precise approach existing or planned for that runway end expanding
45 uniformly to the following widths:
46 Table 86. Approach Zone Width (feet)
47 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
48 2.Approach zone lengths. The approach zone extends for the applicable
49 horizontal distance as follows:
50 Table 97. Approach Zone Length (feet).
51 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CCPC Page 21 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
12
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\Accessory Use Setbacks\Standards for Accessory Building and Structures LDCA 1-10-
18.docx
1 3.Approach zone height. Permitted height limitation within the approach zone
2 shall not exceed the runway end height at the inner edge and increases
3 uniformly with horizontal distance outward from the inner edge as follows:
4 Table 108. Approach Zone Height.
5 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 22 of 75
MEMORANDUM
To: Zoning Staff, Building Dept. Staff.
From: Ross Gochenaur, Planning Manager
Date: 9 April 2007
Subject: Trellises, arbors and similar structures, setbacks
The LDC does not define "trellis," but this word is increasingly used to describe certain
structures in some subdivisions. Webster defines a trellis as "a frame of latticework used as
a screen or as a support for climbing plants." An arbor is defined as a shelter ofvines
or branches or of latticework covered with climbing shrubs or vines. A pergola is "an
arbor or passageway with a roof of trelliswork on which climbing plants are trained to
grow." The structures we're seeing described as trellises do not seem to meet any of
these definitions precisely. They typically consist of uprights supponing crossbeams.
open on top and without latticeu'ork, and not noticeably supporting plants.
This item would be identified as an "unlisted accessory" structure in the Code. If the
Code were strictly applied, these structures would have to meet the same setbacks as
the principal structures. Since this is a grey area, it would seem more reasonable to
treat the structure as either a fence or a pool screen enclosure for the purposes of
setbacks. The applicant will have two options -
1. If treated as a fence, the structure would have to comply with fence height
restrictions but could encroach into any a required yard.
2. lf treated as a screen enclosure, it would have to meet the same setback as a
pool screen enclosure but could exceed the maximum fence height. Under the
last scenario, a "trellis" could not be placed in the required front yard.
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
CCPC Page 23 of 75
Unless specific mention is made of a "trellis" in a PUD document as a permitted
structure or, as in one case, on a subdivision plat (where it doesn't belong), a trellis
will be treated as described above with regard to setbacks.
CC: Susan Istenes, AICP, Zoning Director
Bill Hammond, Building Director
Alamar Finnegan, Permitting Supervisor
CCPC Page 24 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split\4 03 04 Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split 1-10-18
Final.docx
Land Development Code Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department
AUTHOR: Planning and Zoning Division Staff
LDC SECTION: 4.03.04 Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split
SUMMARY: This amendment clarifies the procedure for the review and timely recording of both
lot line adjustments and lot splits, and it clarifies that lot splits are applicable to all zoning districts.
DESCRIPTION: LDC section 4.03.04 sets forth the application process and conditions to obtain
a lot line adjustment and lot split. This amendment resolves a problem related to the timely filing
of a lot split change with the proper offices of the County. After staff has given an approval for a
lot split change, some applicants have subsequently sold property without filing the approved lot
split with the Property Appraiser’s Office, or Clerk of Courts, and then notifying the County that
it had been recorded in the Official Records. The failure to file and record in the Official Records
within a timely manner has caused incorrect property identification, addressing, and taxation
notices. Moreover, owners who apply for a building permit on a newly-split lot have been rejected
if they did not follow these procedures.
For both line adjustments and lot splits, this amendment requires the recording of the approval in
the Official Records within 12 months of approval. It also requires the submittal of the recorded
documents to the Growth Management Department and clarifies the effective date of the approval
as the date it is recorded in the Official Public Records. These changes will ensure the correct
process is followed, and that the Growth Management Department and Property Appraiser can
assign a new property address and/or parcel identification number for a lot split.
LDC section 4.04.04 also currently limits the use of access easements to satisfy the frontage
requirements to Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E) zoning districts. This limitation was
originally established because it was assumed that the situation would only occur within A and E
zoning districts, not because it was inappropriate to allow access easements in other districts. As a
result, staff has allowed access easements to satisfy frontage requirements in any zoning district.
This amendment is intended to codify how this section has historically been applied.
On occasion, this provision has also been incorrectly construed to suggest that lot splits are
prohibited outside the A and E zoning districts. By removing the reference to A and E zoning
districts, this amendment may also help to reduce confusion regarding the applicability of lot splits
in other zoning districts.
This amendment also includes a cross-reference to LDC section 4.03.06 access easement standards
for Golden Gate Estates lot divisions.
Lastly, the amendment relocates procedures that were deemed to be duplicative to new LDC
sections 4.03.04 A and D.
CCPC Page 25 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split\4 03 04 Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split 1-10-18
Final.docx
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
made recommendations for revisions to the narrative and to the LDC text for clarity, which were
incorporated into the amendment. The Subcommittee recommended approval on November 13,
2017.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on December 6, 2017, with
no changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no fiscal or operational impacts
anticipated with this amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There are no anticipated Growth Management
Plan impacts associated with this amendment.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 4.03.04 Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split
2 A. Generally. Only lot line adjustments or lot split requests meeting the applicable land
3 development regulations, including the minimum lot area and lot dimensions for the
4 existing zoning district, may be approved. The approval does not become effective until
5 the lot line adjustment or lot split is recorded with the Clerk of Courts in the Official
6 Records of Collier County, Florida.
7 AB.Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots or parcels
8 which may be platted or unplatted and which are under separate ownership or the same
9 ownership shall be exempt from this section if all of the following conditions are met. The
10 Administrative Code shall establish the procedures and submittal requirements for
11 obtaining a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be recorded with the Clerk of
12 Courts within 12 months of approval by the County Manager or designee, and a copy of
13 the recorded document shall be provided to the Growth Management Department.
14 1. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or surveying error
15 in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between
16 adjacent parcels; and
17 2. Both landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide written consent to
18 the lot line adjustment; and
19 3. Instrument(s) evidencing the lot line adjustment shall be filed in the official
20 records of Collier County, Florida, upon approval, and shall indicate that the
21 result of the lot line adjustment will meet the standards of, and conforms to, the
22 requirements of this LDC, including the dimensional requirements of the zoning
23 district and the subdivision in which the lots are located. However, in cases of an
24 existing nonconforming lot of record, the adjustment shall not increase the
25 nonconformity of the lot; and
26 4. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development
27 rights or permitted density or intensity of use of the affected lots by providing the
28 opportunity to create a new lot(s) for resale or development.
29 BC.Lot Split. All lots must have frontage on a public or private right-of-way, with the
30 exception of 1 one division of a single platted lot or otherwise established lot of record in
31 the Rural Agricultural or Estates zoning district into 2 two lots. Any such lot split may
32 utilize an access easement to satisfy access, and frontage requirements for the lot which
33 would not otherwise have street frontage.
CCPC Page 26 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
3
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split\4 03 04 Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split 1-10-18
Final.docx
1 1. The width of such access easement may not be less than 12 feet and may be
2 required to be wider at the discretion of Collier County staff, to accommodate
3 safe access and turning movements, stormwater drainage pipes and the like.
4 Access easement standards for Golden Gate Estates lot divisions shall be per
5 LDC section 4.03.06.
6 2. The number of access points to a public right-of-way shall not be increased as a
7 result of the lot split if, in the opinion of the county staff, safe and sufficient
8 access may be accomplished with fewer access points than existed prior to the
9 proposed lot split.
10 3. The access easement will create a front yard for setback purposes for all lots
11 abutting the access easement. In cases where access is presently provided by
12 an access easement to existing lots of record in any zoning district which are not
13 part of a recorded or unrecorded subdivision, this easement will serve to satisfy
14 access and frontage requirements for those lots, and yards abutting the
15 easement will be considered front yards for setback purposes.
16 4. Application. The further split or division of a lot, parcel, or any lot of record into 2
17 two proposed parcels must be reviewed and approved by the County prior to any
18 subsequent development orders or development permits issued or approved.
19 Evidence of the County approved lot split shall be provided to the Property
20 Appraiser or Clerk of Courts for their consideration and record-keeping. The lot
21 split shall be recorded with the Clerk of Courts within 12 months of approval by
22 the County Manager or designee, and a copy of the recorded document shall be
23 provided to the Growth Management Department.
24 a. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedures and submittal
25 requirements for obtaining a lot split.
26 b. Appropriate access to the resulting parcels from the public road network
27 shall be demonstrated, and where necessary, may require appropriate
28 easements for joint or cross access to be recorded before an approved lot
29 split becomes effective.
30 c. Only lot split requests meeting the applicable land development
31 regulations, specifically including the minimum lot area and lot
32 dimensions for the existing zoning district, may be approved, but do not
33 become effective until evidence of the County approved lot split is also
34 provided to the Property Appraiser or Clerk of Courts for their
35 consideration and record-keeping, as may be applicable.
36 D. The Administrative Code shall establish the application process and submittal
37 requirements to obtain a lot line adjustment or lot split.
38 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 27 of 75
CCPC Page 28 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Legal sufficiency of EWA permit\10.01.02 Development Orders Required- EWA Legal
Sufficiency DSAC-LDR 12-13-17.docx
Land Development Code Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department
AUTHOR: Development Review Division Staff
LDC SECTION: 10.01.02 Development Orders Required
SUMMARY: This amendment proposes to remove the requirement for a determination of legal
sufficiency for an Early Work Authorization permit (EWA) agreement.
DESCRIPTION: Prior to 2005, in order to commence development prior to the final approval of
a development order, a preliminary work authorization in the form established by the County
Attorney as a binding agreement that was executed by the Board. Ordinance 2005-12 created an
EWA permit that was required to be deemed legally sufficient by the County Attorney’s Office
and approved administratively by the County Manager or designee.
Since 2005, EWA permits have been routinely administered by the County Manager or his
designee without requiring the Board to execute an agreement. Because Board approval is no
longer required, legal review of the permit is not necessary.
Instead, as set forth in the Administrative Code, Chapter 4.D, an applicant submits an application
to obtain a EWA permit. If the petition is deemed complete and meets the criteria identified in
LDC section 10.01.02 B, the County Manager or designee (Development Review Division) issues
a letter of approval and holds a pre-construction meeting prior to commencement of work.
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on November 13, 2017, with no changes.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on December 6, 2017, with
no changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no fiscal or operational impacts anticipated
with this amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACTS: There are no anticipated Growth Management
Plan impacts associated with this amendment.
Amend the LDC as follows:
10.01.02 - Development Orders Required
1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2
3 B. Early Work Authorization (EWA). An EWA permit allows for limited development
4 activities before a development order is issued provided all underlying zoning approvals
5 are in place. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements to
6 obtain an EWA permit.
CCPC Page 29 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Legal sufficiency of EWA permit\10.01.02 Development Orders Required- EWA Legal
Sufficiency DSAC-LDR 12-13-17.docx
1 * * * * * * * * * * * *
2 2. The County may issue an EWA permit for the allowed activities, subject to
3 demonstrated compliance with the following criteria, as applicable:
4 a. The proposed vegetation removal complies with LDC section 3.05.05 O;
5 b. County right-of-way permit has been approved;
6 c. A determination of native vegetation to be retained for landscaping which
7 would comply with LDC section 4.06.00;
8 d. An excavation permit has been approved;
9 e. A Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan demonstrating compliance with
10 the provisions of LDC section 6.01.05;
11 f. Copies of all approved Agency permits being submitted, including, but not
12 limited to: SFWMD, ACOE, USFWS, and FFWCC;
13 g. Determination of legal sufficiency of the EWA permit by the County
14 Attorney's Office;
15 h g. A vegetation bond in the form of a performance bond, letter of credit, or
16 cash bond and in the amount of $2,000.00 per acre is posted for
17 stabilization with vegetation in accordance with LDC section 4.06.04 A.3;
18 i h. Assurance that all underlying zoning approvals are in place (e.g. PUD,
19 C.U., etc.);
20 j i. The EWA permit is valid for 60 days with the possibility of two 60-day
21 extensions dependent on the reason for the inability to gain proper
22 approvals. After that time, cleared areas must be graded off and hydro-
23 seeded. Where more time is needed, a new EWA may be requested;
24 k j. All preliminary construction activities are at the risk of the developer.
25 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 30 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\PDI Process\PDI process clarification 12-12-17.docx
Land Development Code Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Board of County Commissioners
AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff
LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures
10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions
SUMMARY: This amendment adds a requirement for PUD insubstantial changes (PDIs) and
PUD minor changes (PMCs) to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to
approve the ordinance amendment.
DESCRIPTION: Currently, PMCs may be approved by the County Manager or designee or the
Hearing Examiner (HEX), and PDIs require a hearing by the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC). However, the Office of the Collier County Clerk of Courts recently questioned this
process, suggesting the approval of an insubstantial change constitutes an amendment to an
ordinance. It was noted that only the Board can modify an ordinance.
As a result, at the June 13, 2017, Board meeting (Agenda Item 16.A.14), staff was directed to
develop amendments to the LDC and Administrative Code for Land Development to require PDIs
be brought to the Board for approval and ordinance amendment. Staff was also directed to begin
implementing this policy prior to the adoption of the LDC amendment.
This amendment modifies the procedures for PDIs and PMCs in LDC section 10.02.13 E to require
PDIs and PMCs to be heard by the Board for ordinance amendment. This requires one hearing on
the Board’s summary agenda and required advertising. However, if there is an objector, these items
will be placed on the Board’s regular agenda as an advertised public hearing. LDC section 10.03.06
H requires the following advertising for a PDI: one Neighborhood Information Meeting, mailed
notice, newspaper advertisement, and posting of a sign. Procedures for a Boat Dock Facility
Extension, Boathouse Establishment, or Boat Dock Canopy Deviation, which are currently
combined with procedures for PDIs, are relocated to a new LDC section 10.03.06 Z for clarity.
For a PMC, LDC section 10.03.06 T requires a newspaper advertisement (or a mailed notice for
PMCs to remove affordable housing commitments).
Additionally, after the adoption of the Administrative Code in 2013, public hearings for PDIs were
assigned to the HEX. However, this assignment has not been codified in LDC section 10.02.13
E.2. This amendment clarifies that PDIs may be heard by the HEX, as an alternative to the CCPC,
to reflect the current policy.
Finally, since the Board will review all PMCs, it is unnecessary to add an additional hearing before
the HEX if an objection to the removal of an affordable housing commitment is received. However,
the mailed notice requirement for PMCs removing affordable housing commitments is not
changed.
CCPC Page 31 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\PDI Process\PDI process clarification 12-12-17.docx
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on November 13, 2017, with no changes.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on December 6, 2017, with
no changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Fiscal impacts to applicants include increased time
and costs associated with an additional Board hearing and required advertisements for PDIs and
PMCs. Operational impacts to the County include increased staff time required to bring PDIs and
PMCs to an additional hearing before the Board. As an illustration of the frequency of these
requests, between 2015 and 2016, the County received 30 PDI and 7 PMC applications.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There are no anticipated Growth Management
Plan impacts associated with this amendment.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1
2 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures
3 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4 E. Changes and amendments. There are three types of changes to a PUD Ordinance:
5 Substantial, Insubstantial, and Minor.
6 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
7 2. Insubstantial change determination. An insubstantial change includes any
8 change that is not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial
9 change to an approved PUD Ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of
10 LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1 and shall require the review and approval of the
11 Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission, and ordinance amendment by the
12 Board of County Commissioners. The Hearing Examiner decision, Planning
13 Commission approval, and ordinance amendment by the Board of County
14 Commissioners, as applicable, shall be based on the findings and criteria used
15 for the original application and be an action taken at a regularly scheduled
16 meeting.
17 a. The applicant shall provide the Planning and Zoning Department Director
18 documentation which adequately describes the proposed changes as
19 described in the Administrative Code.
20 3. Minor changes. The following are considered minor changes, and may be
21 approved by the County Manager or designee under the procedures established
22 in the Administrative Code. Minor changes shall also require review and approval
23 of the Board of County Commissioners by ordinance amendment.
24 a. Educational and ancillary plants exception. When a PUD is amended for
25 the sole purpose of adding an Educational and/or ancillary plant, that
26 PUD will not be subject to the review process outlined in LDC section
27 10.02.13 E.1. The review conducted will be limited to the impacts that the
28 Educational or ancillary plant will have on the surrounding uses.
29 b. The County Manager or designee shall also be authorized to allow minor
30 changes to the PUD master plan during its subdivision improvements
31 plan or site development plan process to accommodate topography,
32 vegetation and other site conditions not identified or accounted for during
33 its original submittal and review and when said changes have been
CCPC Page 32 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
3
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\PDI Process\PDI process clarification 12-12-17.docx
1 determined to be compatible with adjacent land uses, have no impacts
2 external to the site, existing or proposed, and is otherwise consistent with
3 the provisions of this code and the growth management plan. Such
4 changes shall include:
5 i. Internal realignment of rights-of-way, including a relocation of
6 access points to the PUD itself, where no water management
7 facility, conservation/preservation areas, or required easements
8 are affected or otherwise provided for.
9 ii. Relocation of building envelopes when there is no encroachment
10 upon required conservation or preservation areas.
11 iii. Relocation of swimming pools, clubhouses, or other recreation
12 facilities when such relocation will not affect adjacent properties or
13 land uses.
14 iv. Relocation or reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, or other water
15 facilities subject to the submittal of revised water management
16 plans, or approval of the EAC where applicable.
17 c. Minor changes of the type described above shall nevertheless be
18 reviewed by appropriate staff to ensure that said changes are otherwise
19 in compliance with all county ordinances and regulations prior to the
20 Planning and Zoning Department Director's County Manager or
21 designee’s consideration for approval.
22 cd. Affordable housing commitments. Beginning October 3, 2012, the County
23 Manager or designee shall be authorized to make minor text changes to
24 remove affordable housing commitments to pay an affordable housing
25 contribution in PUDs, Development Agreements, and Settlement
26 Agreements. if the following conditions are met:
27 i. The applicant notices property owners in writing in accordance
28 with LDC section 10.03.06 T.
29 ii. If no written objection is received, the request to remove
30 commitments is deemed approved.
31 iii. If a property owner who receives notice submits a written
32 objection within 30 days of mailing of the notice, the matter shall
33 be scheduled for public hearing before the Board of County
34 Commissioners. Public notice shall comply with LDC sections
35 10.03.05 and 10.03.06.
36 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
37
38 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions
39 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
40 H. PUD Insubstantial Change (PDI) or Boat Dock Facility Extension, Boathouse
41 Establishment, or Boat Dock Canopy Deviation:
42 1. The following advertised public hearings are required:
43 a. One Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner hearing.
44 b. One BCC hearing for ordinance amendment.
45 2. The following notice procedures are required:
46 a. For a PDI, aA NIM. See LDC section 10.03.05 A. However, upon written
47 request by the applicant, the Hearing Examiner has the discretion to
48 waive the NIM after the first set of staff review comments have been
49 issued.
50 b. Mailed Notice prior to the advertised public Planning Commission or
51 Hearing Examiner hearing.
CCPC Page 33 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
4
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\PDI Process\PDI process clarification 12-12-17.docx
1 c. Newspaper Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing.
2 d. Posting of a sign prior to the advertised public Planning Commission or
3 Hearing Examiner hearing.
4 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5 T. Minor Change to a PUD. to remove affordable housing contributions, pursuant to LDC
6 section 10.02.13 E.3.c.
7 1. The following notice procedures are required:
8 a. For minor changes to remove affordable housing contributions:
9 i. Mailed Notice, sent by the applicant.
10 ii. Newspaper advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing.
11 b. For other minor changes:
12 i. Newspaper advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing.
13 2. The following advertised public hearings may be is required:
14 a. If a written objection is received, one One BCC or Hearing Examiner
15 hearing for ordinance amendment.
16 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
17 Z. Boat Dock Facility Extension, Boathouse Establishment, or Boat Dock Canopy
18 Deviation:
19 1. The following advertised public hearing is required:
20 a. One Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission hearing.
21 2. The following notice procedures are required:
22 a. Mailed Notice prior to the advertised public hearing.
23 b. Newspaper Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing.
24 c. Posting of a sign prior to the advertised public hearing.
25 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 34 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 3 | Quasi-Judicial Procedures with a Public Hearing
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\PDI Process\Administrative Code\3.G.3-4 PUD Insubstantial and Minor Changes 10-11-
17.docx
Exhibit A
G.3. PUD Insubstantial Change
Reference LDC subsection 10.02.13 E, LDC section 8.10.00, and LDC Public Notice subsection
10.03.06 H.
Applicability This process applies to insubstantial changes to a PUD Master Plan which meets the
thresholds in LDC section 10.02.13 E.
Pre-application A pre-application meeting is required.
Initiation The applicant files an application for an “Insubstantial Change Tto a PUD Master Plan
(PDI)” with the Planning & Zoning Division.
Application
Contents
The application must include the following:
1. Applicant contact information.
2.Disclosure of ownership.
3. PUD Ordinance and Development Commitment information.
4.A legal or graphic description of the area of amendment. This may be graphically
illustrated on the Amended PUD Master Plan. If the amendment involves only part
of the PUD, provide a legal description for the subject portion.
5.A narrative and detailed description of the amendment and why it is necessary, with
responses to the criteria listed under LDC section 10.02.13 E.1.
6.An analysis of whether the amendment complies with the Growth Management
Plan.
7.Whether a public hearing was held for the property within the year preceding the
application. If this has occurred, include the applicant’s name.
8.Whether any part of the has been sold or developed, and whether the proposed
changes involve those areas.
9.Current and revised Master Plans, along with a reduced copy of each, describing the
proposed changes of the following:
Land use;
Densities;
Infrastructure;
Open space, preservation or conservation areas;
Area of building square footage proposed for nonresidential development;
Change in potential intensity of land use and related automobile trip
movements; and
Relationships to abutting land uses.
10. Addressing checklist.
11.An 8½ in. x 11 in. graphic location map of the site.
CCPC Page 35 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 3 | Quasi-Judicial Procedures with a Public Hearing
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\PDI Process\Administrative Code\3.G.3-4 PUD Insubstantial and Minor Changes 10-11-
17.docx
Exhibit A
12.Pre-application meeting notes.
13.Owner/agent affidavit as to the correctness of the application. Affidavit of
Authorization.
14. Electronic copies of all documents.
Completeness and
Processing
The Planning & Zoning Division will review the application for completeness. After
submission of the completed application packet accompanied with the required fee, the
applicant will receive a mailed or electronic response notifying the applicant that the
petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for the
payment and the tracking number (i.e., XX201200000) assigned to the petition. This
petition tracking number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding the
petition.
Notice Notification requirements are as follows. See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for
additional notice information.
1.NIM: The NIM shall be completed at least 15 days before each advertised public
hearing. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to
property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting.
2.Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification
area at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing.
3.Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15
days before the advertised public hearing Hearing Examiner hearing in a newspaper
of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum:
Date, time, and location of the hearing;
Description of the proposed land uses; and
2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location.
4.Sign: (see format below) Posted at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing
Examiner hearing date.
CCPC Page 36 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 3 | Quasi-Judicial Procedures with a Public Hearing
3
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\PDI Process\Administrative Code\3.G.3-4 PUD Insubstantial and Minor Changes 10-11-
17.docx
Exhibit A
Public Hearing 1.The Hearing Examiner or CCPC shall hold at least 1 one advertised public hearing.
See Chapter 9 of the Administrative Code for the Office of the Hearing Examiner
procedures.
2.The BCC shall hold at least one advertised public hearing for ordinance amendment.
Decision maker The Hearing Examiner. The BCC.
Review Process The Planning & Zoning Division will review the application and identify whether
additional materials are needed. Pursuant to LDC subsection 10.02.13 B.3, Staff will
prepare a Staff Report utilizing the criteria identified in LDC subsection 10.02.13 E, to
present to the Office of the Hearing Examiner for a decision.
The Hearing Examiner or CCPC will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
application utilizing the criteria in LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.
The BCC will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application utilizing the
criteria in LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.
Updated [Resolution No. 2018-XX]
CCPC Page 37 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 3 | Quasi-Judicial Procedures with a Public Hearing
4
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\PDI Process\Administrative Code\3.G.3-4 PUD Insubstantial and Minor Changes 10-11-
17.docx
Exhibit A
G.4. PUD Minor Change
Reference LDC subsection 10.02.13 E, LDC section 8.10.00, and LDC Public Notice subsection
10.03.06 T.
Applicability The following are considered minor changes:
1.Educational and ancillary plants. These include PUD master plans that are amended
for the sole purpose of adding an educational and/or ancillary plant.
2.Removal of Affordable Housing Contributions. The County Manager or designee may
allow minor text changes to remove affordable housing commitments to pay an
affordable housing contribution in PUDs, Development Agreements, and Settlement
Agreements. Conditions are identified in LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.
3.Minor Changes during Construction. The County Manager or designee may allow
minor changes to the PUD Master Plan during its subdivision improvements plan or
site development plan process to accommodate topography, vegetation and other
site conditions not identified or accounted for during its original submittal and review
and when said changes have been determined to be compatible with adjacent land
uses, have no impacts external to the site, existing or proposed, and is otherwise
consistent with the provisions of this code and the growth management plan. These
changes include the following:
Internal realignment of rights-of-way, including a relocation of access points
to the PUD itself, where no water management facility,
conservation/preservation areas, or required easements are affected or
otherwise provided for;
Relocation of building envelopes when there is no encroachment upon
required conservation or preservation areas;
Relocation of swimming pools, clubhouses, or other recreation facilities that
do not affect adjacent properties or land uses; and
Relocation or reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, or other water facilities
subject to the submittal of revised water management plans or approval of
the EAC where applicable.
Pre-application A pre-application meeting is not required.
Initiation The applicant files a “Minor Change to a PUD Master Plan or Text (PMC)” application with
the Planning & Zoning Department Division.
Application
Contents
The application must include the following:
1. Applicant contact information.
2.Disclosure of ownership.
3. PUD Ordinance and Development Commitment information.
4.A legal or graphic description of the area of amendment. This may be graphically
illustrated on the Aamended PUD Master Plan. If the amendment involves only part
CCPC Page 38 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 3 | Quasi-Judicial Procedures with a Public Hearing
5
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\PDI Process\Administrative Code\3.G.3-4 PUD Insubstantial and Minor Changes 10-11-
17.docx
Exhibit A
of the PUD, provide a legal description for the subject portion.
5.The current PUD Master Plan, See Chapter 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code for
requirements and the changes in potential intensity of land use, changes in trips and
relationships to abutting land uses.
6.Include any previously revised Master Plans.
7.A narrative and detailed description of the map change and reason for request.
8.An analysis of whether the amendment complies with the Growth Management Plan.
9.Whether a public hearing was held for the property within the year preceding the
application. If this has occurred, include the applicant’s name and number.
10.Whether any part of the PUD has been sold or developed, and whether the proposed
changes involve those areas.
11.For removal of affordable housing commitments, a completed Letter to Property
owners as identified in the application.
12. Addressing checklist.
13.An 8½ in. x 11 in. graphic location map of the site.
14.Owner/agent affidavit as to the correctness of the application. Affidavit of
Authorization.
15. Electronic copies of all documents.
Completeness and
Processing of
Application
The Planning & Zoning Department Division will review the application for completeness.
After submission of the completed application packet accompanied with the required fee,
the applicant will receive a mailed or electronic response notifying the applicant that the
petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for the payment
and the tracking number (i.e., XX201200000) assigned to the petition. This petition
tracking number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding the petition.
Notice Notification requirements are as follows for Removal of Affordable Housing Contributions:
See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information.
For removal of affordable housing contributions:
1.Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification
area at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner public hearing.
2.Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15
days before the advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The
advertisement shall include at a minimum:
Date, time, and location of the hearing;
Description of the proposed land uses; and
2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location.
For other minor changes:
1.Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15
CCPC Page 39 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 3 | Quasi-Judicial Procedures with a Public Hearing
6
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\PDI Process\Administrative Code\3.G.3-4 PUD Insubstantial and Minor Changes 10-11-
17.docx
Exhibit A
days before the advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The
advertisement shall include at a minimum:
Date, time, and location of the hearing;
Description of the proposed land uses; and
2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location.
Public Hearing 1.No public hearing is required for adding educational and ancillary plants to a PUD or
minor changes to a PUD Master Plan during construction. A hearing before the BCC
for ordinance amendment, pursuant to LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.
2.A hearing before the Hearing Examiner may be required to remove affordable
housing contributions, pursuant to LDC subsection 10.02.13. E.
Decision maker The County Manager or designee or the Hearing Examiner. The BCC.
Review Process Minor changes are reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Department Division staff and may
be approved by the County Manager or designee.
If a public hearing is required to remove Affordable Housing Contributions, Staff will
prepare a Staff Report and Staff will schedule a hearing date before the Hearing Examiner
to present the petition for review.
The BCC will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application utilizing the
criteria in LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.
Appeals Administrative appeals shall be in accordance with the Code of Laws section 250-58.
Updated [Resolution No. 2018-XX]
CCPC Page 40 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\GMP Changes\RFMUD\2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 1-10-18.docx
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department
AUTHOR: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division,
Comprehensive Planning Section
LDC SECTION(S): 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies provisions related to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
and the Rural Fringe Areas map for clarity and to ensure consistency with the Growth Management
Plan (GMP).
DESCRIPTION:
This amendment makes the following four changes to LDC section 2.03.08 A.1.a:
(1) The complete acronym is provided for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District in the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County GMP, and notes that it is the designation
in the FLUE. This change provides a distinction between the RFMUD acronym used in the
FLUE and the RFMU District acronym used in the LDC; without such a distinction, the
reader may not know which regulation (FLUE or LDC) is being referenced.
(2) A statement is added that the RFMU District replaces the underlying “A” zoning district –
which reflects how the County has applied the RFMU District since its adoption in 2004 -
except where development standards are omitted in the RFMU District (e.g. setbacks for
accessory structures). Due to the exemption language in this overlay, this overlay only
applies to properties zoned “A.” This amendment is a clarification of how this overlay is
applied, which differs from the typical overlay that is applied in conjunction with the
underlying zoning.
(3) An outdated building name is updated with the Growth Management Department in LDC
section 2.03.08 A.1.a.
(4) The Rural Fringe Areas map is modified in LDC section 2.03.08 A.1.a to remove the site
of the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Center Subdistrict (indicated by the arrow in the
image below) which is the same as the Corkscrew Commercial Center PUD. This change
makes the Rural Fringe Areas map consistent with a past amendment to the FLUE and
Future Land Use Map (Ord. No. 07-78).
CCPC Page 41 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\GMP Changes\RFMUD\2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 1-10-18.docx
Excerpt from proposed Rural Fringe Areas map with location of change indicated:
This amendment makes the following change to LDC section 2.03.08 A.1.b:
LDC section 2.03.08 A.1.b. is modified to clearly state that the RFMU District is not applicable to
lands not zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and that “expansions” of existing uses refers to on-site
expansions of the use not property expansion to reflect and be consistent with Ordinance 2013-14,
which amended the same language in the FLUE.
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
unanimously recommended approval on November 13, 2017, with no changes.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on December 6, 2017, with
no changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal or operational
impacts as a result of this amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: This amendment will make the LDC section
consistent with the FLUE.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Collier County Growth Management Plan, Future
Land Use Element, II. Agricultural/Rural Designation, B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, 4.
Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards; and, the
countywide Future Land Use Map in the GMP.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 2.03.08 - Rural Fringe Zoning Districts
2 A. Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMU District).
3 1.Purpose and scope. The purpose and intent of the RFMU Ddistrict is to
4 provide a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and
5 between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and Conservation designated lands
6 farther to the east. The RFMU Ddistrict employs a balanced approach, including
7 both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property
8 rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated
9 areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The RFMU
10 Ddistrict allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including
CCPC Page 42 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
3
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\GMP Changes\RFMUD\2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 1-10-18.docx
1 limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities,
2 commercial uses, and essential services deemed necessary to serve the
3 residents of the RFMU Ddistrict. The innovative planning and development
4 techniques which are required and/or encouraged within the RFMU Ddistrict
5 were developed to preserve existing natural resources, including habitat for listed
6 species, to retain a rural, pastoral, or park-like appearance from the major public
7 rights-of-way, and to protect private property rights.
8 a. Establishment of RFMU Zoning Overlay District. In order to implement the
9 Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) designation in the Future Land
10 Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP, the RFMU District shall be designated
11 as "RFMUO" on the Official Zoning Atlas and is hereby established. The
12 RFMU District replaces the underlying zoning district where that
13 underlying zoning district is A, Rural Agricultural, except where
14 development standards are omitted in the RFMU District. The County-
15 wide Future Land Use Map is located in the Future Land Use Element of
16 the GMP or can be obtained at the Community Development Building
17 from the Growth Management Department, located at 2800 N. Horseshoe
18 Drive, Naples, FL 34104. The lands included in the RFMU District and to
19 which this LDC section 2.03.08 apply are depicted by the following map:
20
CCPC Page 43 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
4
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\GMP Changes\RFMUD\2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 1-10-18.docx
1 Map to be replaced:
2
3
CCPC Page 44 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
5
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\GMP Changes\RFMUD\2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 1-10-18.docx
1 Map to be added:
2
3 b. Exemptions. The requirements, limitations and allowances of this section
4 shall not apply to, affect or limit the continuation of existing uses. Existing
5 uses shall include: those uses for which all required permits were issued
CCPC Page 45 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
6
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\GMP Changes\RFMUD\2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 1-10-18.docx
1 prior to June 19, 2002; , and or, projects for which a Conditional use or
2 Rezone petition has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002;
3 , or, projects for which a Rezone petition has been approved by the
4 County prior to June 19, 2002 – inclusive of all lands not zoned A, Rural
5 Agricultural; or, land use petitions for which a completed application has
6 been submitted prior to June 19, 2002. The continuation of existing uses
7 shall include on-site expansions of those uses if such expansions are
8 consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing uses. Hereafter, such
9 previously approved developments shall be deemed to be consistent
10 with the Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies and for the RFMUD
11 district, and they may be built out in accordance with their previously
12 approved plans. Changes to these previous approvals shall also be
13 deemed consistent with the Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives for the
14 RFMUD district as long as they do not result in an increase in
15 development density or intensity.
16 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 46 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\GMP Changes\NBMO\LDCA 2.03.08C 3.05.07C NBMO Sec. 24 12-13-17.docx
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department
AUTHOR: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division,
Comprehensive Planning Section
LDC SECTIONS:2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts
3.05.07 Preservation Standards
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies provisions related to the North Belle Meade Overlay
specific only to Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, to ensure consistency with the
Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP).
DESCRIPTION:
This amendment makes the following two changes to LDC section 2.03.08 C.:
(1) Adds reference to a Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provision that resulted from a partial
stipulated settlement agreement in 2010; recognizes that FLUE provision, which is specific
to one Section within the North Belle Meade Overlay, as the controlling regulation for that
Section; and, provides that the native vegetation preservation requirement for that Section
is as contained in the FLUE, based upon the settlement agreement.
(2) Corrects numbering and lettering format in LDC section citations.
This amendment makes the following change to LDC section 3.05.07 C.2.:
(1) Corrects a cross-reference to LDC section 2.03.08.
All of these changes make the LDC consistent with a prior amendment to the FLUE and Future
Land Use Map series (Ord. No. 10-49).
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on November 13, 2017, with no changes.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on December 6, 2017, with
no changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal or operational
impacts as a result of this amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: This amendment will make the LDC sections
consistent with the FLUE and Future Lands Use Map series.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Collier County GMP, Future Land Use Element, V.
Overlays and Special Features, B. North Belle Meade Overlay; North Belle Meade Overlay
Section 24 Map, part of the Future Land Use Map series; and, Conservation and Coastal
Management Element, Policy 6.1.2.
CCPC Page 47 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\GMP Changes\NBMO\LDCA 2.03.08C 3.05.07C NBMO Sec. 24 12-13-17.docx
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 2.03.08 - Rural Fringe Zoning Districts
2 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3 C. North Belle Meade Overlay District (NBMO).
4 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5 5. Additional specific area provisions.
6 a. Receiving lands.
7 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
8 (4) NBMO rural village. A NBMO rural village shall adhere to the
9 provisions for rural village set forth in LDC section 2.03.08 A.2.b.
10 (A)(2)(b), except as follows:
11 (a) Density. An NBMO rural village shall have a minimum
12 gross density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre and a
13 maximum gross density of three (3) dwelling units per acre.
14 i. The minimum required density shall be achieved
15 through TDR credits, TDR Bonus Credits, and
16 Rural Village Bonus credits, as provided in LDC
17 section 2.03.08 A.2.b.(3)(c) (C).
18 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
19 b. Neutral lands. Neutral lands shall be governed by the standards set forth
20 in LDC section 2.03.08 A.3. (A)(3), with the exception that, in those In
21 addition to standards in LDC section 2.03.08 A.3., neutral lands located in
22 Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, shall be governed by the
23 North Belle Meade Overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP.
24 Where there is a conflict between provisions, the GMP overlay provisions
25 shall apply. a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation present shall be
26 preserved.
27 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
28
29 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
30 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
31 C. Specific standards for the RFMU district. For Lands within the RFMU district, native
32 vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and
33 vegetation retention standards and criteria, in addition to the generally applicable
34 standards and criteria set forth in LDC section 3.05.07 A (above). Further, for the
35 portion of the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System located within the Immokalee
36 Urban Designated Area, native vegetation shall be preserved on site through the
37 application of the Neutral Lands standards established in LDC section 3.05.07 C.2
38 (below).
39 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
40 2. Neutral lands.
41 a. In neutral lands, a minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not
42 to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved.
43 b. Exceptions.
44 i. In those neutral lands located in Section 24, Township 49 South,
45 Range 26 East, in the NBMO, native vegetation shall be
46 preserved as set forth in LDC section 2.03.08 DC.5.b.
47 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 48 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\GMP Changes\ACSC-ST\LDCA 4.02.14 Design Standards ACSC-ST 1-10-18.docx
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department
AUTHOR: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division,
Comprehensive Planning Section
LDC SECTION: 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts
ZONING MAPS: 522930, 2033N, 2033S, 2034N, 2034S
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies provisions related to the Big Cypress Area of Critical
State Concern (ACSC) and five zoning maps within Township 52 South, Range 30 East, in order
to ensure consistency with the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
DESCRIPTION:
This amendment makes the following change to LDC section 4.02.14 A.:
(1)Adds an acknowledgement that an agreement may be entered regarding the ACSC
regulations, pursuant to State law.
This amendment makes the following two changes to LDC section 4.02.14 C.:
(1) Adds a list of exotic plant species prohibited specifically within the ACSC that are not
listed in LDC section 3.05.08.
(2) Adds a list of wetland plant species that cannot be destroyed and removes the reference to
all wetland plants as listed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
This amendment makes the following change to zoning atlas maps 522930, 2033N, 2033S, 2034N,
2034S:
(1) Removes the ACSC overlay acronym (“ACSC/”) for all of Sections 27, 28, 33 and 34,
Township 52 South, Range 30 East (See Exhibit A). These four Sections are specifically
exempted (in Rule Chapter 28-25.001 Boundary) from the State’s ACSC regulations, and
the ACSC Overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP also exempts these
Sections.
All of these changes make the LDC text and zoning maps consistent with a recent amendment to
the FLUE and Future Land Use Map (Ord. No. 17-22).
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on November 13, 2017, with no changes.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on December 6, 2017, with
no changes.
CCPC Page 49 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\GMP Changes\ACSC-ST\LDCA 4.02.14 Design Standards ACSC-ST 1-10-18.docx
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal or operational
impacts as a result of this amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: This amendment will make the LDC section
and zoning maps consistent with the FLUE.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Collier County Growth Management Plan, Future
Land Use Element, V. Overlays and Special Features, A. Area of Critical State Concern Overlay;
and, the countywide Future Land Use Map in the GMP.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts
2 A. All development orders issued within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern
3 Special Treatment Overlay (ACSC-ST) shall comply with the Florida Administrative
4 Code, as amended, Boundary and Regulations for the Big Cypress Area of Critical
5 State Concern, except as provided by Agreement pursuant to Chapter 380.032(3), F.S.
6 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
7 C. Site alteration within the ACSC-ST.
8 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9 3. Soils exposed during site alteration shall be stabilized and retention ponds or
10 performance equivalent structures or system maintained in order to retain
11 runoff and siltation on the construction site. Restoration of vegetation to site
12 alteration areas shall be substantially completed within 180 days following
13 completion of a development. Revegetation shall be accomplished with
14 preexisting species except that undesirable exotic species shall not be
15 replanted or propagated. Undesirable Eexotic species included are those
16 enumerated in LDC section 3.05.08 of this code and the following:.
17 a) Bishopwood (Bischofia javanica);
18 b) Castor bean (Ricinus communis);
19 c) Common papaya (Carica papaya)
20 d) Common snakeplant (Sanseviera trifasciata);
21 e) Day jessamine (Cestrum diurnum);
22 f) Hunters robe (Raphidophora aurea);
23 g) Queensland umbrella tree (Schefflera actinophylla);
24 h) Trailing wedelia (Wedelia trilobata).
25 4. No mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise
26 altered. Plants specifically protected by this regulation include: all wetland
27 plants listed by the Florida DEP in the Florida Administrative Code.
28 a) Red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle);
29 b) Black mangrove (Avicennia nitida);
30 c) White mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa);
31 d) Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus);
32 e) Salt cordgrasses (Spartina alterniflora, S. patens, S. cynosuroides, S.
33 spartinae);
34 f) Seashore saltgrass (Distichlis spicata).
35 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 50 of 75
SR 29BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVET52S
T53SR30E36R29E25
31
30
24 19
18
12 7
20
CR837
17
8
US 41
28 27 26CR84121
22
16
9
15
10
23
14
11
R30ER31E25
T53ST52S CR83924
13
12R30E1R29E654CR837321 R30ET52ST51S
R31EFAKAHATCHEE STRAND987
U.S. ROUTE 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL)
18
21
20
17 16
6 5 4
1110
26
15
22
14
23
3 2
T52S
T51S
R28ER29ECON-ACSC/ST 2
2913S
2033N
2912S
2913N
2033S
2034N
2034S
2032
2029
2022S
2026S
203536
Pu"b"1
A-ACSC/ST
CON-ACSC/ST
NUC 4
CU"23"3,5
CU"22"6
CON-ACSC/STFAKAHATCHEE STATE PARKBIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVESV 7
V 8
9ST/W-2
9ST/W-1
ST/W-3 9
ST/W-4 9
CU10
SUBDIVISON INDEX
ATTEST___________________________CLERK
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TWP 52S RNG 29E & 30E
MAP NUMBER:
BY___________________________CHAIRMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION$522930
5329305228 523132512930
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
12345678910
ZONING NOTES1 10-23-90 PU-90-19 90-5162 LDC-913 3-24-98 CU-92-16(1) 98-864 4-13-93 NUC-93-1 93-1615 3-23-93 CU-92-16 93-1296 3-8-94 CU-93-18 94-1597 1-24-95 SV-94-4 95-748 12-12-00 V-00-29 00-4609 9-25-12 LDC ORD. 12-3810 1-10-06 CU-03-AR-4647 06-10THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THEOFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND ADOPTEDBY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-41 OF THECOUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004,AS AMENDED BY THE ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISIONINDEX REFERENCED HEREON.
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
11121314151617181920
INDICATES SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY
INDICATES PARK BOUNDARY
R 29 E R 30 E
T 52 S0 4,800
SCALE
8-14-17CCPC Page 51 of 75
SR 29BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVET52S
T53SR30E36R29E25
31
30
24 19
18
12 7
20
CR837
17
8
US 41
28 27 26CR84121
22
16
9
15
10
23
14
11
R30ER31E25
T53ST52S CR83924
13
12R30E1R29E654CR837321 R30ET52ST51S
R31EFAKAHATCHEE STRAND987
U.S. ROUTE 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL)
18
21
20
17 16
6 5 4
1110
26
15
22
14
23
3 2
T52S
T51S
R28ER29ECON-ACSC/ST 2
2913S
2033N
2912S
2913N
2033S
2034N
2034S
2032
2029
2022S
2026S
203536
Pu"b"1
A-ACSC/ST
CON-ACSC/ST
NUC 4
CU"23"3,5
CU"22"6
CON-ACSC/STFAKAHATCHEE STATE PARKBIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVESV 7
V 8
9ST/W-2
9ST/W-1
ST/W-3 9
ST/W-4 9
CU10
CON - ST
SUBDIVISON INDEX
ATTEST___________________________CLERK
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TWP 52S RNG 29E & 30E
MAP NUMBER:
BY___________________________CHAIRMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION$522930
5329305228 523132512930
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
12345678910
ZONING NOTES1 10-23-90 PU-90-19 90-5162 LDC-913 3-24-98 CU-92-16(1) 98-864 4-13-93 NUC-93-1 93-1615 3-23-93 CU-92-16 93-1296 3-8-94 CU-93-18 94-1597 1-24-95 SV-94-4 95-748 12-12-00 V-00-29 00-4609 9-25-12 LDC ORD. 12-3810 1-10-06 CU-03-AR-4647 06-10THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THEOFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND ADOPTEDBY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-41 OF THECOUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004,AS AMENDED BY THE ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISIONINDEX REFERENCED HEREON.
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
11121314151617181920
INDICATES SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY
INDICATES PARK BOUNDARY
R 29 E R 30 E
T 52 S0 4,800
SCALE
10-3-17
LDCA EXHIBIT "A"DRAFT
CCPC Page 52 of 75
CCPC Page 53 of 75
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
DONA DRIVEEGRET CANALM-29
M-30
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-11C-12C-13C-14C-15C-16C-17C-18C-19C-20C-21C-22C-23C-24C-26C-27C-28C-29C-25M-31M-32M-33M-34M-35M -3 6
M -3 7
M -3 8
M -3 9
M -4 0
M -4 1
M -4 2
M 0 4 3 68
M-69
M-70
M-71
M-72
73
98
99
100
101 102 103
104
105
106MAHOGANY DR.CANALSNOOKMAGNOLIA LN.ROYAL PALMTAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41)CANALSATINWOODDRIVE33
33
DRIVE11
1
1
2
2 S.R. 837CON-ST
C4-ST
RSF-4-ST
2
CON-ST
CON-ST
2
2
2
2
2
2
LAST REVISION: ZONING ___________________ OTHER ___________________SUBDIVISON INDEX
ATTEST___________________________CLERK
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TWP 52S RNG 30E SEC(S) 33 NO 1/2
MAP NUMBER:
BY___________________________CHAIRMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION$2033N
2033S2032 2034N522930
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
1 EVERGLADE SHORES UNIT 1 6 12 KENTUCKYANA ESTATES UNIT 1 9 98345678910
ZONING NOTES1 2 LDC-913 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SCALE
0 400
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THEOFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND ADOPTEDBY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-41 OF THECOUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004,AS AMENDED BY THE ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISIONINDEX REFERENCED HEREON.
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
11121314151617181920
LDCA EXHIBIT "A"DRAFT
CCPC Page 54 of 75
CCPC Page 55 of 75
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
RSF-4-ST
V
CON-ST
33
33
1 DONA DRIVEEGRET CANALCANALARROW HEADMAHOGANY DRIVESATINWOOK DRIVECANALCANALLANEPINE
CANALTARPONSEA GRAPE DRIVESNOOKTORCHWOOD DRIVECANALROYAL PALM DRIVEBUTTONWOOD DRIVECANALC-3
C-2
C-1
192191
190
189
188
187
186
185
184
183
182
181
180179178
177
176
175
174
173
172
171
170
169
168
167166
165
164
163
162
161
160
159
158
157
156
155154153
152
151
150
149
148
147
146
145
144
143
142141
140
139
138
137
136
135
134
133
132
131
130
129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
111
110
109
108
107
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
8685
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
7467
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
5655
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
12
11
10
9
2
LAST REVISION: ZONING ___________________ OTHER ___________________SUBDIVISON INDEX
ATTEST___________________________CLERK
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TWP 52S RNG 30E SEC(S) 33 SO 1/2
MAP NUMBER:
BY___________________________CHAIRMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION$2033S
5329302032 2034S2033N
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
1 EVERGLADE SHORES UNIT 1 6 12 KENTUCKYANA ESTATES UNIT 1 9 98345678910
ZONING NOTES1 8-6-85 V-84-28C 85-167 (MIN LOT REQ.)2 LDC-913 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SCALE
0 400
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THEOFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND ADOPTEDBY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-41 OF THECOUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004,AS AMENDED BY THE ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISIONINDEX REFERENCED HEREON.
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
11121314151617181920
LDCA EXHIBIT "A"DRAFT
CCPC Page 56 of 75
CCPC Page 57 of 75
POST OFFICEOCHOPEE
HD 2
1
1
1 1
1 1 TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41)
34
34
CON-STS.R. 83726
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
1610
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
32313029282726252423
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12
1110987654321
ALLEY
OSPREY CANALDONA DRIVE1
2
3
9
8
7
6
5
4
LAST REVISION: ZONING ___________________ OTHER ___________________SUBDIVISON INDEX
ATTEST___________________________CLERK
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TWP 52S RNG 30E SEC(S) 34 NO 1/2
MAP NUMBER:
BY___________________________CHAIRMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION$2034N
2034S2033N 203536522930
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
1 KENTUCKYANA ESTATES UNIT 1 9 982345678910
ZONING NOTES1 LDC-912 9-27-94 HD-94-1 94-7063 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SCALE
0 400
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THEOFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND ADOPTEDBY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-41 OF THECOUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004,AS AMENDED BY THE ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISIONINDEX REFERENCED HEREON.
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
11121314151617181920
LDCA EXHIBIT "A"DRAFT
CCPC Page 58 of 75
CCPC Page 59 of 75
1
11
3434
CON-ST
15
14
1312
11
OSPREY CANALDONA DRIVE18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
11
LAST REVISION: ZONING ___________________ OTHER ___________________SUBDIVISON INDEX
ATTEST___________________________CLERK
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TWP 52S RNG 30E SEC(S) 34 SO 1/2
MAP NUMBER:
BY___________________________CHAIRMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION$2034S
5329302033S 3035362034N
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
1 KENTUCKYANA ESTATES UNIT 1 9 982345678910
ZONING NOTES1 LDC-912 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SCALE
0 400
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THEOFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND ADOPTEDBY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-41 OF THECOUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, ADOPTED JUNE 22, 2004,AS AMENDED BY THE ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISIONINDEX REFERENCED HEREON.
NO. NAME P.B. Pg.
11121314151617181920
LDCA EXHIBIT "A"DRAFT
CCPC Page 60 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Soil Erosion & Sediment Control\6.01.05 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 12-13-
17.docx
Land Development Code Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department
AUTHOR: Planning and Zoning Division
LDC SECTION: 6.01.05 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
SUMMARY: This amendment proposes to require Best Management Practices (BMPs) for soil
erosion and sediment control for developments such as single-family, two-family, townhouse
structures, as well as underground construction activities.
DESCRIPTION: Both the State of Florida and County have established performance standards
for soil erosion and sediment control during grading and land alternations to retain sediment on-
site. Florida’s stormwater regulatory program requires the use of BMPs during and after
construction to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation, and manage runoff. The Florida Stormwater,
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Inspector’s Manual (July 2008) cites the following; “The goals
of Florida’s stormwater regulatory program and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) are to protect water quality and to minimize erosion and sedimentation by
requiring the use of effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during and after grading.”
At the county level, Objective 5.4 in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME)
of the GMP requires the County to “maintain…regulations identifying criteria to control and
reduce soil erosion and sediment transport from construction and other nonagricultural land
disturbing activities.” Additionally, Collier County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, Phase 2 Stormwater Permit requires the County to control pollution from construction
sites, and it includes procedures for site inspection and enforcement.
Currently, these requirements are met through the submittal of a Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan, as required in LDC section 6.05.01, for developments to obtain construction approval
by an Early Work Authorization (EWA) permit, Site Development Plan (SDP), or Site
Improvement Plan (SIP). However, LDC section 10.02.03 A.3 inadvertently exempts a number of
construction activities from using BMPs because they are not required to obtain an EWA permit,
SDP, or SIP approval.
As a result, staff frequently receives complaints regarding soil erosion and sedimentation issues at
construction sites for single family homes, duplexes, or townhomes such as the example shown in
Figures 1 and 2. These issues not only disturb surrounding properties, stormwater systems, and
other waterways, but also cause construction delays, fines, and additional expenses to reverse the
damage caused by missing or inadequate soil erosion and sedimentation control measures.
This amendment requires those projects not required to submit a Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan to implement BMPs for sediment and erosion control. Typically, BMPs are described
in Chapter 4 of the FDEP’s “Florida Stormwater, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Inspector’s
Manual.” These standards include: 1) perimeter controls such as silt-fence, floating turbidity
barriers when adjacent to waterways, or straw bale to stabilize soil and 2) storm drain inlet
CCPC Page 61 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Soil Erosion & Sediment Control\6.01.05 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 12-13-
17.docx
protection such as a fabric drop, sod drop, or gravel and wire mesh inlet sediment filter. However,
the specific control measures required will depend on the characteristics of each construction site
and adjoining property. Per LDC section 10.02.06 B.1.e., it is further noted that any of the
following property improvements, lot clearing, grading, stockpiling of soil, demolition, building
construction or reconstruction, building alteration or addition cannot commence without a building
permit or vegetation removal permit. Therefore, the building department shall, at the time of the
first building inspection, determine if the appropriate BMP for erosion and soil control is effective.
Figure 1. Absence of silt fence and soil
stabilization adjacent to waterway.
Figure 2. Off-site sedimentation.
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended removing the word “discarded” from the reference to building materials in
subsection B.3. This change was incorporated into the amendment and the DSAC-LDR
Subcommittee recommended approval on November 13, 2017.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on December 6, 2017, with
no changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: No operational impacts are anticipated as the building
department will observe compliance at the time of the first building inspection. Depending on the
site characteristics and BMP, additional costs can be incurred once development commences.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACTS: There are no Growth Management Plan
impacts associated with this amendment.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 6.01.05 - Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
2 A.Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. For new and existing development and
3 construction approved pursuant to the provisions of LDC sections 10.02.03, 10.02.04
4 and 10.02.05, a soil erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared and submitted
5 for approval with the required construction documents for each proposed project as
CCPC Page 62 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
3
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Soil Erosion & Sediment Control\6.01.05 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 12-13-
17.docx
1 prescribed by objective 5.4 and policy 5.4.1 of the Conservation and Coastal
2 Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan.
3 1.Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and submittal
4 requirements for a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
5 B. Developments not requiring a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall implement
6 and maintain best management practices in accordance with the Florida Stormwater
7 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Manual for sediment and soil erosion control, to
8 prevent the transport of sediment and pollutants off site.
9 1. All sediment and soil erosion control devices shall be installed prior to the
10 commencement of construction for demolition, renovation, alteration,
11 construction, stockpiling of fill, lot clearing or grading.
12 2. During construction activities, the applicant shall remove any pollutant, silt,
13 debris, or dirt resulting from the construction activities that accumulates off site or
14 within any stormwater management system, including but not limited to swales,
15 lakes, ponds, canals, and waterways.
16 3. Debris generated on site, including but not limited to building materials, concrete
17 truck wash-out, litter, and sanitary waste shall be stored, secured, or otherwise
18 controlled on site.
19 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 63 of 75
CCPC Page 64 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
1
\\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Ellen\Administrative Variance\Drafts\LDC Section 9.04.04 - 12-
12-17 for CCPC.docx
Land Development Code Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department Staff
AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff
LDC SECTION: 9.04.04 Specific Requirements for Minor After-the-Fact Encroachment
SUMMARY: This amendment creates an exception from the requirement to pursue an
Administrative Variance (AVA) for residential structures with setback encroachments of three
inches or less that result from the application of exterior wall treatments.
DESCRIPTION: For many years, the Growth Management Department has received daily
requests seeking to determine if a residential structure complies with zoning regulations. These
inquiries often occur during the due-diligence stage of the sale of a property and include an as-
built survey of the structure. If the as-built survey shows a structural encroachment into the
required setbacks, the owner would need a variance to clear the encumbrance from the property
title, placing an unexpected financial burden on those seeking to purchase or sell a property.
Although the as-built survey may show the structure with a setback encroachment, further research
into the property often shows the building permit for the structure was approved and issued with
the required setbacks in effect at that time, a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was granted, and the
structure satisfied the structure-to-structure separation requirements. During the building permit
process, a spot survey is required after the slab inspection but will only demonstrate the location
of the slab. Therefore, these encroachments may occur when the exterior frame walls are
constructed flush with the outer most edge of the slab, and the added exterior wall treatments
extend into the required yard. Examples of the exterior wall treatments may include stucco, siding,
or stone finishes.
Currently, LDC section 9.04.04 B establishes that requests where building permits and CO’s were
granted qualify for administrative variance approval if the encroachment does not exceed ten
percent of the required yard with a maximum of two feet. Since 2014, approximately 37 percent
of AVAs approved in accordance with LDC Section 9.04.04 B were for encroachments of less
than three inches.
The County would not require the homeowner to pursue a variance for these types of
encroachments, as the amendment proposes to deem the residential structures compliant with the
applicable development standards within the LDC, when the following has occurred:
A building permit has been granted;
The building permit was approved utilizing the required setbacks in effect at that time;
A certificate of occupancy has been granted;
The encroachment does not exceed three inches into the required yard;
The only portion of the structure encroaching into the required yard is the exterior wall
treatment; and
The required structure to structure separation, as identified in LDC section 4.02.02, is
satisfied.
CCPC Page 65 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
2
\\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Ellen\Administrative Variance\Drafts\LDC Section 9.04.04 - 12-
12-17 for CCPC.docx
However, the exception is not applicable to the foundation or other architectural design features
that encroach into required yards.
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on November 13, 2017, with no changes.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on December 6, 2017, with
no changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: This amendment will result in fewer Administrative
Variances. However, if homeowners still require verification the property meets setbacks, this
may increase the number of requests for Zoning Verification Letters. This could decrease fees
collected by the Growth Management Department. However, by eliminating the need for AVAs,
homeowners with encroachments of three inches or less may save the cost of the application fee
and any other consultant fees associated with obtaining the administrative variance.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACTS: There are no anticipated Growth Management
Plan impacts associated with this amendment.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 9.04.04 – Specific Requirements for Minor After-the-Fact Encroachment
2 Minor after-the-fact yard encroachments for structures, including principal and accessory
3 structures, may be approved administratively by the County Manager or designee. Exceptions
4 to required yards as provided for within LDC section 4.02.01. D shall not be used in the
5 calculations of existing yard encroachments.
6 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
7 B. For both residential and non-residential structures, the County Manager or designee
8 may administratively approve minor after-the-fact yard encroachments of up to ten (10)
9 percent of the required yard with a maximum of two (2) feet when a building permit and
10 certificate of occupancy has been granted. The encroachment applies to the yard
11 requirement in effect as of the date the building permit was issued.
12 1. Exception. Residential structures shall be deemed compliant with the applicable
13 development standards and no variance shall be required when the following
14 additional conditions apply:
15 a. The building permit and certificate of occupancy were approved in
16 compliance with the required setbacks in effect at that time;
17 b. The encroachment does not exceed three inches into the required yard;
18 c. The only portion of the structure encroaching into the required yard is the
19 exterior wall treatment; and
20 d. The required structure to structure separation, as identified in LDC
21 section 4.02.02, is satisfied.
22 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
23
24 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
25
CCPC Page 66 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
1
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\LDCA Limits-Process\10.02.09 Removing LDCA Limits 12-13-17.docx
Land Development Code Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department Staff
AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff
LDC SECTION:10.02.09 Requirements for Text Amendments to the LDC
SUMMARY: This amendment proposes to modify the number of times amendments to the Land
Development Code (LDC) may be made.
DESCRIPTION: Currently, LDC section 10.02.09 states that amendments to the LDC may be
made no more than twice a year, unless the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directs
additional amendments by super-majority vote. LDC amendments are initiated in several ways:
The Board directs amendments,
State legislation mandates changes to local government regulations,
Private entities request amendments,
Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments require LDC amendments, or
Collier County staff propose LDC amendments.
Each of the above sources of LDC amendments may include different timeframes for completion
of LDC amendments, for example:
Local moratoria sometimes require LDC amendments at a faster pace than, or out of cycle
with, other planned amendments;
State legislation may become effective at various times of the year;
Privately initiated amendments may be requested at any time; or
GMP changes may require concurrent LDC amendments.
Due to the variety of sources and timeframes of LDC amendments, the current maximum of two
LDC amendments per year places an unnecessary limitation on staff time and resources. Given the
limitation is not statutorily required, this amendment proposes to remove the limitation in order to
better reflect the origination, frequency, and time constraints historically associated with LDC
amendments. This the procedures for privately initiated LDC amendments are also addressed
through a companion Administrative Code amendment (Exhibit A). The Administrative Code
amendment clarifies the application requirements, review process, and adds a requirement for a
pre-application meeting for privately initiated LDC amendments.
Regardless of the source or timing, LDC amendments are reviewed at several public meetings,
including, at a minimum:
Development Services Advisory Committee - Land Development Review Subcommittee
(DSAC-LDR) (1 meeting)
DSAC (1 meeting)
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) (1 advertised hearing, if necessary)
Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) (1 or 2 advertised hearings)
Board of County Commissioners (1 or 2 advertised hearings)
CCPC Page 67 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
2
L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Jeremy\LDCA Limits-Process\10.02.09 Removing LDCA Limits 12-13-17.docx
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on November 14, 2017, with no changes.
DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC recommended approval on December 6, 2017, with
no changes.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts
associated with this amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACTS: There are no anticipated Growth Management
Plan impacts associated with this amendment.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 10.02.09 Requirements for Text Amendments to the LDC
2 A. Text Amendments to the LDC.
3 1. Amendments to the LDC may be made no more than twice during the calendar
4 year as scheduled by the County Manager, except if the Collier County Board of
5 County Commissioners, by at least a super-majority vote, directs that additional
6 amendments be made for specific purposes.
7 21. The LDC may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the consistency of
8 the LDC with the Growth Management Plan.
9 32. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for LDC
10 amendments.
11 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
CCPC Page 68 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 2 | Legislative Procedures
1
Exhibit A
B. Privately Initiated Land Development Code Amendments – Privately
Initiated Text Amendments
Reference LDC section 10.02.09, LDC Public Notice subsection 10.03.06 A and K, F.S. § 163.3202,
and F.S. § 125.66.
See LDC section 10.03.06 for County Initiated Text LDC Amendments.
Applicability Privately initiated Aamendments that supplement, change, or repeal the text of the LDC.
Pre-Application A pre-application meeting is not required.
Initiation The applicant files an “Application for Amendment to the Land Development Code.” with
the Planning & Zoning Division.
Application
Contents
The application must include the following information:
1. Applicant Contact Information.
2. Completed LDC Amendment Request form.
3. Pre-application meeting notes.
4. LDC amendment request document, including the following.
• The applicant’s name;
• The name of the author of the LDC text amendment;
• All LDC sections to be modified by the amendment;
• A written statement briefly describing the change requested;
• A written statement describing the justification for the amendment and any
other relevant information about the change requested;
• A written statement describing any potential fiscal or operational impacts
associated with the amendment;
• A written statement addressing the amendment’s consistency with the
Growth Management Plan;
• Changes to the LDC shall be identified in a strikethrough/underline format.
Strikethrough language represents removal and underlined language
represents new language.; and
• All cross references to the section in the LDC shall be checked and amended
if necessary.
5. Electronic copies of all documents.
Completeness and
Processing of
Application
The Growth Management Division Department will review the application for
completeness. After submission of the completed application packet accompanied with
the required fee, the applicant will receive a mailed or electronic response notifying the
applicant that the petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a
receipt for the payment and the tracking number (i.e., XXX201200000) assigned to the
CCPC Page 69 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 2 | Legislative Procedures
2
Exhibit A
petition. This petition tracking number should be noted on all future correspondence
regarding the petition.
Notice
Requirements for
Amendments which
affect 10 acres or
less of land and do
not change the list
of permitted,
conditional or
prohibited uses
within a zoning
category
Notification requirements are as follows. See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for
additional notice information.
1. Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15
days before each advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.
The advertisement shall include at a minimum:
• The title of the proposed ordinance or resolution;
• Date, time, and location of the hearing; and
• Places(s) within the county where the proposed ordinance may be
inspected by the public.; and
• LDC amendments that change the zoning map designation of 10 acres or
more of land or change the permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses
within a zoning category shall include a 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project
location.
Notice for
Amendments which
affect 10 acres or
more of land and
do change the list
of permitted,
conditional or
prohibited uses
within a zoning
category
Notification requirements are as above, with the addition of:
• 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location of which amends the Zoning Atlas
and/or changes the permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses within a
zoning category in the County.
Public Hearings for
Amendments which
affect 10 acres or
less of land and do
not change the list
of permitted,
conditional or
prohibited uses
within a zoning
category
For LDC amendments that change the zoning map designation of less than 10 acres of
land or do not change the list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a
zoning district:
1. The EAC shall hold at least 1 one advertised public hearing, if required.
2. The Planning Commission shall hold at least 1 one advertised public hearing.
3. The BZA BCC shall hold at least 1 one advertised public hearing.
For LDC amendments that change the zoning map designation of 10 acres or more of
land, or change the list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning
district:
1. The EAC shall hold at least one advertised public hearing, if required.
2. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one advertised public hearing.
• The Planning Commission may elect by a majority decision to hear the
ordinance or resolution at two advertised public hearings. If there is only
one advertised public hearing, the hearing shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a
CCPC Page 70 of 75
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 2 | Legislative Procedures
3
Exhibit A
weekday, and if there are two advertised hearings, then at least one of the
advertised public hearings shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday.
3. The BCC shall hold at least two advertised public hearings.
• At least one advertised public hearing shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a
weekday, unless the BCC by a majority vote plus one vote elects to conduct
that hearing at another time of day.
Notice for
Amendments which
affect 10 acres or
more of land and
do change the list
of permitted,
conditional or
prohibited uses
within a zoning
category
1. The EAC shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing, if required.
2. The Planning Commission shall have at least 1 advertised public hearing. The
Planning Commission may elect by a majority decision to hear such ordinance or
resolution at 2 advertised public hearings. If there is only 1 advertised public
hearing, the hearing shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday, and if there are 2
advertised hearings, then at least 1 of the advertised public hearings shall be held
after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday.
3. The BBC shall have at least 2 advertised public hearings. At least 1 advertised public
hearing shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday, unless the BCC by a majority
vote plus 1 vote elects to conduct that hearing at another time of day.
Decision maker The BCC, following the recommendations from both the EAC, if required, and the
Planning Commission.
Review Process Staff reviews the amendment application and provides a recommendation. The Planning
& Zoning Division will review the application and identify whether additional materials
are needed. Staff will prepare a Staff Report and provide a recommendation to the
following advisory boards and the BCC:
• The DSAC reviews the amendment application in a public meeting and
makes a recommendation to the BCC.
• The EAC reviews the amendment application if the proposed change
includes an environmental component in accordance with Collier County
Code of Laws section 2-1193. The EAC makes a recommendation to the
BCC.
• The Planning Commission reviews the application for consistency with the
GMP and makes a recommendation to the BCC.
The BCC shall review the application and the recommendations by the advisory boards.
The BCC may approve, approve with revisions, or deny the proposed ordinance or
resolution.
Effective Date Per F.S. § 125.66, the ordinance must be filed with the Florida Department of State,
Tallahassee, FL within 10 days of signing by the Chairman of the Board. The effective
date is the date it is filed with the State, unless a date is specified in the ordinance.
Updated [Resolution 2018-XX]
CCPC Page 71 of 75
CCPC Page 72 of 75
Page 1 of 3
2017/18 LDC Amendment Cycle
Summary Sheet with Advisory Board and Board Recommendations
LDC Section(s) and
Summary
DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
November 13, 2017
DSAC
December 6, 2017
CCPC
January 18, 2018
February 7, 2018
BCC
TBD
LDC Sections 1.08.02
& 9.03.03:
Re-codifying the
definition for
“nonconforming lot
of record.”
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended making specific
reference to October 14,
1974, and retaining existing
language allowing for
additional splits or subdividing
a parcel. These
recommendations were
incorporated in the
amendment and the
Subcommittee recommended
approval on November 13,
2017.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
LDC Section 2.03.03
& 2.03.04:
Establishing martial
arts, gymnastics, and
dance as permitted
uses in C-3 and
Industrial Zoning
Districts.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on
November 13, 2017, with no
changes.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
LDC Sections
2.03.07, 4.02.01,
4.02.03, 4.02.04, &
4.02.06:
Clarifying
dimensional
standards for
accessory buildings
and structures.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended language
clarifying the notes and cross-
references, which were
incorporated into the
amendment. The
Subcommittee recommended
approval on November 13,
2017.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
LDC Section 4.03.04:
Clarifying procedures
for Lot Line
Adjustments and Lot
Splits.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended revisions to
the narrative and to the LDC
text for clarity, which were
incorporated into the
amendment. The
Subcommittee recommended
approval on November 13,
2017.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
LDC Section
10.01.02:
Clarifying the criteria
for Early Work
Authorizations.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on
November 13, 2017, with no
changes.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
CCPC Page 73 of 75
Page 2 of 3
LDC Section(s) and
Summary
DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
November 13, 2017
DSAC
December 6, 2017
CCPC
January 18, 2018
February 7, 2018
BCC
TBD
LDC Sections
10.02.13 & 10.03.06:
Clarifying the
Planned Unit
Development
Insubstantial Change
(PDI) approval
process. This
amendment includes
changes to
Administrative Code
Chapter 3 G.3-4.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on
November 13, 2017, with no
changes.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
LDC Section 2.03.08:
Modifications to the
Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District and Rural
Fringe Areas map.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on
November 13, 2017, with no
changes.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
LDC Sections 2.03.08
and 3.05.07:
Modifications to
provisions related to
the North Belle
Meade Overlay
specific only to
Section 24, Township
49 South, and Range
26 East.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on
November 13, 2017, with no
changes.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
LDC Section 4.02.14:
Modifications to the
list of exotic species
in Big Cypress Area of
Critical State Concern
(ACSC).
Zoning Maps:
Modifications to
Zoning Maps 522930,
2033N, 2033S, 2034N
& 2034S within
Township 52, South,
Range 30 East to
address changes to
the State’s ACSC
designation.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on
November 13, 2017, with no
changes.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
CCPC Page 74 of 75
Page 3 of 3
LDC Section(s) and
Summary
DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
November 13, 2017
DSAC
December 6, 2017
CCPC
January 18, 2018
February 7, 2018
BCC
TBD
LDC Section 6.01.05:
Requiring soil erosion
and sediment control
Best Management
Practices for single
family, two family,
townhouses, and
underground utility
construction.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended removing the
word “discarded” from the
reference to building
materials in subsection B.3.
This change was incorporated
into the amendment and the
DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on
November 13, 2017.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
LDC Section 9.04.04:
Establishing an
exception from an
Administrative
Variance for Minor
After-the-Fact
Encroachments.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on
November 13, 2017, with no
changes.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
LDC Section
10.02.09:
Removing limits on
text amendments to
the Land
Development Code.
The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
recommended approval on
November 14, 2017, with no
changes.
The DSAC
recommended
approval on
December 6, 2017,
with no changes.
CCPC Page 75 of 75