Agenda 06/10/2014 Item # 9A 6/10/2014 9.A.
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to review and consider approving (adopting) a portion of the 2013 Cycle
1 of Growth Management Plan Amendments — Buckley and Naples Reserve projects.
(Adoption Hearing) (Companion to PUD amendment petition PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,
Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD))
OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to review a portion of the 2013
cycle of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and consider
approving (adopting) said amendments for their transmittal to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity(Buckley and Naples Reserve petitions).
CONSIDERATIONS:
• Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted
Growth Management Plan.
• Resolution 12-234,provides for a public petition process to amend the Collier County GMP.
• For this Adoption hearing, two of the three petitions in the 2013 cycle 1 of GMP
amendments are being considered, those being petition PL20120002909/CP-2013-3,
Buckley, and PL20130000139/CP-2013-1,Naples Reserve.
• The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency"
under Chapter 163.3174,F.S.,held its Transmittal hearing for the two subject petitions,being
a portion of the 2013 cycle 1 of GMP amendments, on September 19, 2013. The BCC held
n its transmittal hearing on November 12, 2013. The respective transmittal hearings
recommendations/actions are contained in the CCPC adoption hearing Staff Report (which
also addresses the other petition in the 2013 cycle 1 of GMP amendments).
• The CCPC held its adoption hearing on May 1, 2014 (both petitions) and also heard petition
CP-2013-3 on May 15, 2014. The staff and CCPC adoption hearing recommendations are
presented further below.
• The Comments Letter from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), dated
December 18, 2013, indicated "no comment" within the Agency's authorized scope of
review. Similarly, Comments Letters from the Florida Department of Transportation,Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and South Florida Water Management District all
indicated either"no comments"or"no concerns"within those Agencies' authorized scope of
review. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services commented that a
community wildfire protection plan should be created for the project, and that project
residents should be made aware of possible smoke from periodic prescribed fire at Picayune
Strand State Forest. The remaining review agencies did not provide a Comments Letter. All
review agency Comments Letters received are contained in the back-up materials.
• This adoption hearing considers amendments to the Future Land Use Element(FLUE).
Note:Because the support materials are voluminous,and some exhibits may be oversized,the
Agenda Central system does not contain all of the related documents pertaining to these GMP
amendment petitions. The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials,is
included in the binder that is available for review in the Comprehensive Planning Section office
at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Naples,as well as in the Clerk of Courts/Minutes and Records
1
Packet Page-11-
6/10/2014 9.A.
office at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401. Or,to view back-up materials, see
http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaJune 10/GrowthMgmt/7%29 PL20120002909 CP-2013-
3 Buckley Petition.pdf
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality. An affirmative
vote of four is needed for adoption and transmittal to DEO.--HFAC
FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of approving
either or both petitions.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This is an adoption public hearing for two of the
three petitions in the 2013 cycle 1 of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management
Plan. Based upon statutory changes that occurred during the 2011 Florida Legislative session,
these GMP amendments are presumed to be "in compliance" with applicable Florida Statutes.
After adoption, the DEO and other applicable review agencies will have 30 days (from the date
DEO determines the adoption package is complete) to review the adopted Plan amendment(s)
and, should they believe the amendment(s) is not "in compliance," file a challenge [appeal] to
the presumed "in compliance" determination with the Florida Division of Administrative
hearings. Similarly, any affected party also has 30 days (from the date of BCC adoption) in
which to file a challenge. If a timely challenge is not filed by DEO or an affected party,then the
amendment(s)will become effective.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The site of petition CP-2013-3 was previously cleared and used
for agricultural purposes. The site of petition CP-2013-1 was previously partially cleared and
used for agricultural purposes; native vegetation occurs primarily in the preserves identified on
the PUD Master Plan, and these preserves are encumbered by an existing conservation easement,
in favor of the South Florida Water Management District.
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Neither petition site is identified on the
County's Historical/Archeological Probability Maps as being in an area of historical or
archaeological probability. Communications from the Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources, indicates no significant archaeological or historical sites recorded for or
likely to be present within either petition site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff
recommendation follows each individual petition listed below.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The
Collier County Planning Commission held its required Adoption public hearing on May 1, 2014
(CP-2013-1) and both May 1 and 15, 2014 (CP-2013-3). The CCPC recommendation follows
each individual petition listed below.
1. Petition PL20130000139/CP-2013-1 is a petition submitted by iStar Development Company,
SFI Naples Reserve, LLC, and Wilton Land Company, LLC, requesting amendments to the
Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Density Rating System in the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) to allow the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Credits from
2
Packet Page-12-
6/10/2014 9.A.
any Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands to be used in the Naples
Reserve PUD. A portion of the Naples Reserve PUD is designated Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict and a portion is designated RFMUD Receiving Lands. The FLUE presently
limits the use of TDR Credits in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to those derived
from RFMUD Sending Lands located within one (1) mile of the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict boundary. The Naples Reserve PUD is located approximately 11/2 miles east of
Collier Boulevard (CR 951), and approximately '/2 mile north of US 41 East, north of the
Reflection Lakes development (Walnut Lakes PUD), in Section 1, Township 51 South,
Range 26 East. The purpose of the re-designation is to remove the limitation on where TDR
Credits may be derived so as to allow the Naples Reserve PUD to obtain TDR Credits from
distant RFMUD Sending Lands. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
During the creation of the RFMUD GMP amendments, it was asserted by some that the [then
proposed] Sending Lands located closest to the Urban Residential Fringe were of higher
value, therefore should receive a higher compensation, perhaps a greater number of TDR
Credits per five acres than other Sending Lands. The RFMUD GMP amendments were
adopted without a different compensation ratio but the amendments did restrict the usage of
TDR Credits in the Urban Residential Fringe to only those derived from Sending Lands
located within one mile. Stated differently, TDR Credits derived from Sending Lands
located greater than one mile from the Urban Residential Fringe cannot be used in the Urban
Residential Fringe. The proposed amendment would remove that restriction but only for the
Naples Reserve PUD.
Staff analysis of this petition is included in the CCPC Transmittal Staff Report.
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP-2013-1 to the BCC with a
recommendation to adopt. (In the CCPC Adoption staff report, staff erroneously recommended
approval with a stipulation; at the CCPC Adoption hearing, staff changed its recommendation
back to that at Transmittal hearing—approval without stipulation.)
CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC adopt petition CP-2013-1 (vote: 4/3). Some CCPC
members expressed the opinion that some portion of the TDR Credits for the Urban Residential
Fringe portion of the project should [continue to] be required to be derived from within one mile
of the Urban boundary.
There was one public speaker, stating some portion of the TDR credits should [continue to] be
required to be derived from within one mile of the Urban boundary.
Staff Recommendation to BCC: Same as to CCPC—to adopt.
2. Petition PL20120002909/CP-2013-3 is a petition submitted by McGuire Development
Company requesting amendments to the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict in the Future Land
Use Element (FLUE) to: a) modify the intent section so as to no longer require small scale,
mixed use development; b) eliminate the requirement to develop a mixed use project, i.e. no
longer require development of residential uses; c) eliminate the cap on retail uses square
feet/acre; d) eliminate the cap on office uses square feet/acre; e) eliminate the maximum
3
Packet Page-13-
6/10/2014 9.A.
building footprint (of 15,000 square feet); f) eliminate the requirement to develop a specified
portion of total square feet in multi-story buildings; g) eliminate the restriction on drive-
through establishments to banks only, and add allowance for four establishments with drive-
through facilities; h) eliminate the internal access requirement; i) eliminate the requirement
for all sides of buildings to have a common architectural theme; j) eliminate the specified
buffer requirement along Airport Road; k) eliminate the specified landscape buffer
requirement along all other property lines; 1) eliminate the screening requirement for parking
areas; m) add allowance for maximum of 50% of the total square feet to be within multi-
tenant buildings (strip shopping centers/plazas); and, n) add correlating reduction of
commercial square feet to number of residential units and vice versa. [Coordinator: Michele
Mosca,AICP,Principal Planner]
The results of these proposed amendments are: the site could now be developed as all
residential or all commercial; if developed all commercial, it could now be all retail or all
office (162,750 s.£ - the same total square feet as presently allowed but the current
subdistrict text limits the amount of each type of commercial development) but there are
differences in use intensity and impacts of office development vs. retail development;
commercial uses could now include "big box" stores - up to 100,000 sq. ft. - and the balance
(62,750 s.f.) developed as single tenant/use building; within the cap of 162,750 s.f of
commercial development, a strip shopping center/plaza could be built at a maximum 81,375
s.f. based on the 50% cap, with the remaining 81,375 s.f. built in one or more single tenant
buildings [note: the CCPC recommended deletion of this 50% cap — see CCPC
Recommendation below]; building profiles could now be uniform (all the same story/height)
rather than varying; other uses with drive-through facilities besides banks would now be
allowed, and up to four of them; architectural standards and landscape buffer requirements
would now be as per the Land Development Code rather than more stringent. In short,
• development would be allowed similar to Activity Centers except uses limited to C-1 —C-3.
There is a.difference in perspective between the petitioner and staff. The petitioner has
demonstrated there is a limited supply of available vacant lands that would accommodate C-1
through C-3 uses within the site's market area but has not demonstrated a demand for such
vacant lands. Staff has consistently requested the demand analysis be provided for such
GMP amendments, which typically consists of population data, disposable income, etc. in
order to determine supportable commercial acreage within the identified market area. Staff
views the demand for additional commercial from an inventory perspective (and recognizes
that variables for the commercial lands inventory include location, size, depth, zoning
intensity, etc.) — is there a need/demand for more commercial in the subject area? If there
isn't, then adding more commercial may negatively impact lands already designated and/or
zoned for commercial. Staff does not view the demand, or lack thereof, for additional
commercial as an indicator of success or failure for the subject site; that is determined by the
market.
In considering the appropriateness of location, staff notes this site is at a mid-block location
proposing uses — including big box up to 100,000 square feet - which the GMP generally
directs to Activity Centers which are located at major intersections. Additional staff analysis
of this petition is included in the CCPC Transmittal Staff Report.
4
Packet Page-14-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP-2013-3 to the BCC with a
recommendation not to adopt. (In the CCPC Transmittal staff report, staff offered two sets of
alternative subdistrict text.)
CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC adopt petition CP-2013-3 (vote: 5/1), subject to the
following changes to the text as approved for Transmittal to DEO: 1) delete new paragraph f. so
as to no longer limit the amount of commercial development that can occur within multi-tenant
buildings, e.g. shopping centers, to 50% — would allow up to the entire 162,750 s.f. to be
developed as one or more shopping centers as opposed to a maximum of 81,375 s.f. in shopping
centers and 81,375 s.f. in one or more single tenant/use buildings; 2) revise new paragraph g. to
only allow residential uses in freestanding buildings - no longer allow mixed use (commercial
and residential uses) in the same building; 3) revise new paragraph h. to make a wordsmithing
change (replace "for" with "from"); 4) revise new paragraph m. to clarify only convenience
stores with fuel pumps are prohibited — convenience stores without fuel pumps would be
allowed; and, 5) delete new paragraph p. so as to no longer prohibit a vehicular interconnection
to the south—an interconnection would not be prohibited, nor required,in this subdistrict text.
Below are the actual text changes as recommended by the CCPC.
(Words underlined are added,words struck are deleted—as Transmitted to DEO
Words a �. :c&'_t "'t0r are added,words - ° '
�� ,. :; , s';,; are deleted—as recommended by CCPC)
12. Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict
The intent of this Subdistrict .... The development of this Subdistrict will be governed by the
following criteria:
25% of the total built s.uare footagc will be devoted to ..inglc story
b� il�d�in ey xi' 'r ''147 t _ w v'
kg -2 2-2 --- •- - -:: . Residential uses
�- ��` = ���g be inte•rated wl�- 'th
_ � .
commercial uses ,E �
� - �= t- •__� t'����•. ""�- _ .� ..4-_ _. _ _._ _ _ _���,
For each acre of land utilized for residential purposes,
7,500 square feet of commercial buildable square footage will be eliminated & i'�`
the total square footage allowable. For each acre of commercial square footage built,
11 residential units will be eliminated from the maximum allowable number of
residential units.
gm.hls gGasoline service stations and convenience stores ��<< ��r� `. are prohibited.
loin be permitted
There were no public speakers.
Staff Recommendation to BCC: Same as to CCPC —not to adopt (but would support adopting
either of two staff alternatives contained in the CCPC Transmittal staff report on pages 16-17).
5
Packet Page-15-
6/10/2014 9.A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For this portion of the 2013 cycle 1 of GMP amendments,
staff recommends adoption of petition CP-2013-1,Naples Reserve, and transmittal to DEO; and,
not to adopt CP-2013-3, Buckley (but would support adopting either of two staff alternatives
contained in the CCPC Transmittal staff report on pages 16-17).
CCPC RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission recommends
adoption of this portion of the 2013 cycle 1 of GMP amendments, and transmittal to DEO, with
no changes to CP-2013-1 (vote: 4/3), and subject to the changes to CP-2013-3 as shown above
(vote: 5/1).
Prepared by: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section,Planning
&Zoning Department, Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation
Attachments: 1) CCPC Adoption Staff Report 2013 Cycle 1; 2) CP-2013-1 Ordinance with
Exhibit "A" text; 3) CP-2013-3 Ordinance with Exhibit "A" Text; 4) Executive Summary
Transmittal 2013 Cycle 1; 5) CCPC Transmittal Staff Report CP-2013-1; 6) CCPC Transmittal
Staff Report CP-2013-3; 7)2013 Cycle 1 Transmittal Staff Correspondence
Executive Summary.Adoption 2013 cycle]Buckley&Naples Reserve
G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2013 Cycles&Small Scale Petitions\2013 Cycle 1-February\2013.1 BCC Adoption dw/5-15&20&28.14
•
6
Packet Page-16-
6/10/2014 9.A.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.9.A.
Item Summary: Recommendation to review and consider approving (adopting) a portion
of the 2013 Cycle 1 of Growth Management Plan Amendments- Buckley and Naples Reserve
projects. (Adoption Hearing) (Companion to PUD amendment petition PUDZ-A-
PL20120002906, Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)).
Meeting Date: 6/10/2014
Prepared By
Name: WeeksDavid
Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning
5/15/2014 6:27:52 PM
Submitted by
Title: Manager-Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Name: WeeksDavid
5/15/2014 6:27:53 PM
Approved By
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 5/19/2014 3:07:01 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services
Date: 5/19/2014 3:22:21 PM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney,CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 5/21/2014 1:53:36 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title:Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
^ Date: 5/28/2014 7:59:34 AM
Packet Page-17-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management&Budget
Date: 5/28/2014 2:06:43 PM
Name:KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 5/28/2014 3:47:23 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 5/29/2014 4:05:08 PM
n
Packet Page-18-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Agenda Items 9.A, B, D
.0001COlit-irm a •sedjrget-kitY
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/PLANNING AND REGULATION, PLANNING
AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION
HEARING DATE: MAY 1, 2014
SUBJECT: 2013 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS (ADOPTION
HEARING)
ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP
SERIES
NOTE: The CCPC will act as the EAC, Environmental Advisory Council, for petition CP-2013-4 only.
Transmittal hearings on these amendments were held on August 7, 2013 (EAC, Environmental
Advisory Council) for petition SCP-2013-4 only; September 19, 2013 (CCPC, Collier County Planning
Commission) and November 12, 2013 (BCC). The respective Transmittal recommendations/actions
are presented further below, following each petition number and title.
Within the CCPC binder you will find the Transmittal Executive Summary from the November 12, 2013
BCC hearing and certain attachments referenced therein, the Transmittal CCPC staff report for each
petition, and the Transmittal EAC staff report (for petition CP-2013-4 only), all of which provide staff's
detailed analysis of each petition.
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS
After review of the Transmitted GMP amendments, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
(DEO) rendered its Comment Letter indicating "no comment" within the Agency's authorized scope of
review, as did the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Department of
Transportation, and South Florida Water Management District. The Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services (DACS) rendered comments within their authorized scope of review,
indicating a Community Wildfire Protection Plan should be developed for the property involved in
petition CP-2013-4. The remaining reviewing agencies did not provide a Comment Letter. The
Comments Letters received are located within the CCPC binder.
In response to the DACS Comment, staff notes the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands
provision in the FLUE contains a requirement for an applicant to work with the Florida Forestry
Service to prepare a Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan which is then submitted to the County
with the proposed development order (rezone petition, site development plan, plat). The subject
petition, CP-2013-4, has a companion PUD rezone petition for which the required Wildfire Prevention
and Mitigation Plan was submitted.
Within the CCPC binder is an Ordinance with Exhibit "A" text and/or map for each petition; those
exhibits reflect the text and/or map as approved by BCC for transmittal.
- 1 -
STAFF REPORT ON
2013 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS (ADOP77ONHEARING)
Packet Page-19-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Agenda Items 9.A, B, D
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
A. PETITION CP-2013-1/PL-20130000139, Petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE), to: Allow the Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential
Planned Unit Development to utilize Transfer of Development Rights from any lands designated
as Sending Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. The subject property, consisting of
668 acres, is located approximately 1-1/2 miles east of Collier Boulevard and one mile north of US
41 in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Corby
Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text of the Growth Management
Plan to introduce specific exceptions from Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program limitations,
affecting the transfer of TDR credits among properties in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) and the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. Note: A companion PUD rezone
petition is scheduled for this same hearing.
TRANSM ITTAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO.
CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 6/0).
BCC ACTION: Transmitted to DEO (vote: 3/1), per CCPC recommendation.
The BCC also directed the applicant to speak with Maureen Bonness about an arrangement to obtain
a percentage of TDRs from within one mile of the Urban designated area (Ms. Bonness spoke at the
hearing, and owns property in the Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban boundary). This
direction was given with the purpose to make such an arrangement, not as part of GMP provisions,
but by mutual agreement.
ADOPTION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt with revisions, as depicted below. (The results of the Board-
directed negotiations have not been reported to Comprehensive Planning personnel. In their
absence, staff recommends including requirements for TDR acquisition by location as part of GMP
provisions.)
[Words underlined are added-as proposed by the applicant and approved for Transmittal;
Words double underlined are added,and words double std are deleted-as recommended by staff]
[Page 29]
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross
acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either "a" or
"b" below:
a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of properties
that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units
per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3
-2 -
STAFF REPORT ON
2013 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS (ADOP7ION HEARING)
Packet Page-20-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Agenda Items 9.A, B, D
dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of
the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands. The
Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit
Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subiect to
the one mile limitation set forth above •ut ha utilize o - s -n Ifi,_D- -
(30%) of TDRs from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban boundas,r to achieve up to the maximum allowable
density; or,
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: [Page 49]
This Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated on the Future Land Use Map
as: Urban, Urban Mixed Use District; and, on a very limited basis, Agricultural/Rural. It is not
applicable to the Urban areas encompassed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan; these two Elements have their own density provisions. The Density Rating
System is applicable to that portion of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to the extent that the
residential density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded, except for the density bonus
provisions for Affordable Housing and Transfer of Development Rights, and except as provided for
in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The final determination of permitted
density via implementation of this Density Rating System is made by the Board of County
Commissioners through an advertised public hearing process (rezone or Stewardship Receiving
Area designation).
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses are
discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus
provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land
Development Code.
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit per
gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density
Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which
may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary
into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3
units per gross acre. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve
Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South.
Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above aod-Reki
but shall utilize no less than thirty percent (30%a) of TDRs from
- 3 -
STAFF REPORT ON
2013 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS (ADOPTION HEARING)
Packet Page-21-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Agenda Items 9.A, B, D
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District -.•'∎• 1• .' 11.1 •,- • - •
the Urban boundary to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase.
B. PETITION CP-2013-3/PL-20120002909, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), to: Revise the Buckley Mixed
Use Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District to remove the office and retail caps and allow up
to 7,500 square feet of gross floor area of commercial uses per acre or 11 residential dwelling
units per acre, to make residential development optional, to prohibit commercial and residential
uses on the same parcel, to limit multi-tenant commercial buildings to no more than 50% of the
commercial square footage, to revise development standards including the cap on the size of the
footprint of commercial buildings. The subject property consisting of 21.70 acres is located on the
west side of Airport Road, approximately 330 feet north of Orange Blossom Drive in Section 2,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator.. Michele Mosca, AICP,
Principal Planner]
This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE)text by amending the Urban Mixed
Use District, specifically the existing Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict to remove the office and retail
square feet caps; allow up to 7,500 square feet of gross floor area of commercial uses per acre or 11
residential dwelling units per acre; to make residential development optional; to prohibit commercial
and residential uses on the same parcel; to limit multi-tenant commercial buildings to no more than
50% of the commercial square footage in order to provide for stand-alone commercial development;
and, to revise development standards, including the elimination of the cap on the size of commercial
building footprints. Note:A companion PUD rezone petition is scheduled for this same hearing.
TRANSMITTAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not to transmit to DEO, as submitted. Staff proposed two alternatives
and recommended approval of either.
CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 6/0) subject to stipulations. These stipulations
encourage rezone to be in form of a PUD; require a common theme for architecture, signage, lighting
and landscaping; limits residential density to 11 DU/acre; limit commercial uses to those allowed in C-
1 to C-3; limit commercial floor area to 162,750 square feet; limit individual commercial use floor area
to 100,000 square feet; limit multi-tenant buildings to 50% of the commercial floor area; encourage
multi-use buildings; provide for a balance of commercial and residential uses; allow just one fast-food
restaurant with a drive through facility; prohibit gas stations and convenience stores; require Type C
buffers on perimeter lot lines where residential uses are adjacent; among those already
recommended by staff. Additionally, the CCPC's motion expressed desire for the owner to pay his fair
share towards cost of a traffic signal at project entrance, should a signal be warranted in the future—
and acknowledged such a condition would be appropriate at time of rezoning.
BCC ACTION: Transmitted to DEO (vote: 4/0), per CCPC recommendation.
POST-TRANSMITTAL: For adoption, the petitioner requests changes to new paragraph g., as shown
below. The petitioner explains: "The GMPA language for the Buckley project consisted of language
under item (g) that was a hold-over from the previously approved language but is inconsistent with the
stated intent of the amendment. Where item (g) as written encourages residential and commercial
uses in mixed use buildings, it has been the position of the applicant that residential and commercial
uses shall NOT be in the same building. In order to be consistent with what has been presented to
neighbors to date, I ask that the language be modified as shown."
-4-
STAFF REPORT ON
2013 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS (ADOPTION HEARING
Packet Page-22-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Agenda Items 9.A, B, D
Text as approved for transmittal by BCC, and modified by the petitioner using double underline/double
64 format:
kg - _ - - - --- - ' -- - -- _ - - - - - - . Residential uses
_: .=_ • . • be integrated • - --' = - -_ - _• -•- _
- - - - - - - - -- - - with
commercial uses in the same building.
Clean text provided for ease in reading:
g. Residential uses shall not be integrated with commercial uses in the same building
ADOPTION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not to Adopt.
C. PETITION CPSP-2013-4/PL-20130000365, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land
Use Map and Map Series (FLUE), to: Change the designation of the Olde Florida Golf Club
property from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Neutral Lands to Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District (RFMUD) Receiving Lands. The subject property, consisting of 554± acres, is located on
the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, two miles east of Collier Boulevard in Section
31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,
AICP, Principal Planner]
This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan to
^ re-designate the subject site from Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD)
Neutral Lands to RFMUD Receiving Lands. This re-designation would allow for an increase in
residential density from 1 dwelling unit/5 acres to 1 dwelling unit/acre for non-Rural Village
development, through participation in the TDR program; allow for development of a Rural Village
(density of 2-3 dwelling units/acre; commercial, civic and recreational uses; greenbelt on the project
perimeter), also through participation in the TDR program; and, decrease the native vegetation
retention requirement from 60% to 40% of the native vegetation present on site. Note: A companion
PUD rezone petition is scheduled for this same hearing.
TRANSMITTAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO.
EAC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 5/0).
CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 6/0).
BCC ACTION: Transmitted to DEO (vote: 3/1), per CCPC recommendation.
ADOPTION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as transmitted.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
^ This staff report has been approved as to form and legality by the Office of the County Attorney.
-5 -
STAFF REPORT ON
2013 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS (ADOPIIONHEARING)
Packet Page-23-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Agenda Items 9.A, B, D
STAFF RECOMMENDATION OVERALL:
That the CCPC forward one petition to the BCC with a recommendation not to adopt(CP-2013-
3); forward one petition with a recommendation to adopt as transmitted (CP-2013-4), and one
petition with a recommendation to adopt as revised in this Report CP-2013-1), and to transmit
both of those petitions to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and to reviewing
agencies who provided comments.
PREPARED BY:
201 rJ f 5. ffi V DATE: 10 t l
CORBY SCHMIDT, AICP, PRINCIPAL C AL PLANN ER
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: a r"f
DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN MANAGER
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: 41' _j
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED BY:
€ N I den . xt;, DATE: r\
NICK CASALANGUIDA,ADIINISTRATOR--
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
2013 Cycle 1 GMPAs - Adoption (petitions CP-2013-1/PL-2013-0000139; CPSP-2013-3/PL-2012-
0002909; CPSP-2013-4/PL-2013-0000365).
Staff Report for the May 1, 2014, CCPC Meeting.
NOTE: This cycle of petitions has been scheduled for the June 10, 2014, BCC Meeting.
G:\CDES Planning Services\ComprehensivelCOMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments12013 Cycles & Small Scale Petitions12013 Cycle 1 -
February12013.1 CCPC Adoption12013.1 Cycle GMPAs_Adoption all CCPC staff rprt_final.docx • •N
- 6-
STAFF REPORT ON
2013 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS (ADOPTION HEARING
Packet Page-24-
6/10/2014 9.A.
ORDINANCE NO. 14-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO ALLOW THE URBAN
RESIDENTIAL FRINGE PORTION OF THE NAPLES RESERVE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO UTILIZE
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM ANY LANDS
DESIGNATED AS SENDING LANDS WITHIN THE RURAL
FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT, AND PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1-1/2 MILES EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD AND ONE MILE NORTH OF US 41 IN SECTION 1,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 668 ACRES.
[PL20130000139/CP-2013-1
WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the
Community Planning Act, formerly the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and
Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier
County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local
governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to
amend adopted comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, Petitioners, Star Development Company and Wilton Land Company LLC,
have initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use Element; and
WHEREAS, Collier County transmitted the Growth Management Plan amendments to
the Department of Economic Opportunity for preliminary review on November 20, 2013, after
public hearings before the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Economic Opportunity reviewed the amendments to the
Future Land Use Element to the Growth Management Plan and transmitted its comments in
writing to Collier County within the time provided by law; and
1
Words underlined are additions;Words Statek-thr-ough S-through are deletions
*** *** *** ***are a break in text
PL20130000139/CP-2013-1
Rev.5/13/14
Packet Page-25-
6/10/2014 9.A.
WHEREAS, Collier County has 180 days from receipt of the Comments Report from the
Department of Economic Opportunity to adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed
amendments to the Growth Management Plan; and
WHEREAS,Collier County has gathered and considered additional information, data and
analysis supporting adoption of these amendments, including the following: the Collier County
Staff Report, the documents entitled Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendments and
other documents, testimony and information presented and made a part of the record at the public
hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission held on May 1, 2014, and the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners held on June 10, 2014; and
WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of the law have been
met.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN
The amendment to the Future Land Use Element attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted in accordance with Section 163.3184,
Florida Statutes, and shall be transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.
SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY.
If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court
of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DA'Z'E.
The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged,
shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan
amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective
on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order
determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders,development
permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commenced before it has
become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission,
this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency.
2
Words underlined are additions;Words struck thfeugb are deletions
*** *** *** ***are a break in text
PL20130000139/CP-2013-1
Rev.5113/14
Packet Page-26-
6/10/2014 9.A.
PASSED AND DULY ADOP'1 ED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County,Florida this day of 2014.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, Chairman
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A
13-CMP-00903,29
3
Words underlined are additions; Words struck h are deletions
** *** ******are a break in text
PL20130000139/CP-2013-1
Rev.5/13/14
Packet Page-27-
6/10/2014 9.A.
PL20130000139 CP-2013-1
EXHIBIT "A"
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
[Page 29]
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban
Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and
5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base
density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME
Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either"a" or"b" below:
a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary
and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of
properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for
in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional
maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban
Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development
rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands. The Urban Residential
Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in
Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile
limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending
within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable
density; or,
[Page 49]
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
This Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated on the Future Land Use
Map as: Urban, Urban Mixed Use District; and, on a very limited basis, Agricultural/Rural. It
is not applicable to the Urban areas encompassed by the lmmokalee Area Master Plan, and
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; these two Elements have their own density provisions.
The Density Rating System is applicable to that portion of the Urban Coastal Fringe
Subdistrict to the extent that the residential density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not
exceeded, except for the density bonus provisions for Affordable Housing and Transfer of
Development Rights, and except as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Overlay. The final determination of permitted density via implementation of
this Density Rating System is made by the Board of County Commissioners through an
advertised public hearing process (rezone or Stewardship Receiving Area designation).
1
Words underlined are added;words stFUslt#rough are deleted.
Row of asterisks i"""• Totes break in text.
Packet Page-28-
6/10/2014 9.A.
PL20130000139 CP-2013-1
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density
bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for
each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone
criteria in the Land Development Code.
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are
permitted as follows:
(a) From Urban designated areas into that portion of the Urban designated area
subject to this Density Rating System, in accordance with the Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land
Development Code, adopted by Ordinance No. #04-41, as amended, on June
22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004. For projects utilizing this TDR process,
density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwise allowed by
the Density Rating System.
(b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development.
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit
per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe
and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other
Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating
System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of
the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a
maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. The Urban Residential
Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development
located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,shall not be subject to
the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands
designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to
the maximum allowable density increase.
In no case shall density be transferred into the Coastal High Hazard Area from outside
the Coastal High Hazard Area.
2
Words underlined are added; words struck ough are deleted.
Row of asterisks ; cotes break in text.
Packet Page-29-
6/10/2014 9.A.
ORDINANCE NO. 14-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT TO REVISE THE BUCKLEY MIXED USE
SUBDISTRICT OF THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT TO
REMOVE THE OFFICE AND RETAIL CAPS AND ALLOW UP TO
7,500 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF
COMMERCIAL USES PER ACRE OR 11 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, TO MAKE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONAL,TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE SAME PARCEL,TO LIMIT MULTI-
TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO NO MORE THAN 50%
OF THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, TO REVISE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING THE CAP ON THE
SIZE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, AND
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED
AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT
ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET NORTH OF ORANGE
BLOSSOM DRIVE IN SECTION 2,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 21.70
ACRES. [PL20120002909/CP-2013-3]
WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the
Community Planning Act, formerly the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and
Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier
County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local
governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to
amend adopted comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner, McGuire Development Company has initiated this amendment to
the Future Land Use element; and
t
Words underlined are additions;Words surueli-difett41 are deletions
*** *** ******are a break in text
PL20120002909/GP-2013-3
Rev. 5/15/14
Packet Page-30-
6/10/2014 9.A.
WHEREAS, Collier County transmitted the Growth Management Plan amendments to
the Department of Economic Opportunity for preliminary review on November 20, 2013, after
public hearings before the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Economic Opportunity reviewed the amendments to the
Future Land Use Element to the Growth Management Plan and transmitted its comments in
writing to Collier County within the time provided by law; and
WHEREAS, Collier County, has 180 days from receipt of the Comments Report from the
Department of Economic Opportunity to adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed
amendments to the Growth Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, Collier County has gathered and considered additional information, data and
analysis supporting adoption of these amendments, including the following: the Collier County
Staff Report, the documents entitled Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendments and
other documents, testimony and information presented and made a part of the record at the public
hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission held on May 1, 2014 and May 15,2014,
and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners held on June 10, 2014; and
WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of the law have been
met.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN
The amendments to the Future Land Use Element attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted in accordance with Section 163.3184,
Florida Statutes, and shall be transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.
SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY.
If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court
of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DAVE.
The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged,
shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan
amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective
on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order
2
Words underlined are additions;Words struck gh are deletions
*** *** *** ***are a break in text
PL20120002909/CP-20I3-3
Rev.5/15/14
Packet Page-31-
6/10/2014 9.A.
determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development
permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commenced before it has
become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission,
this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida this day of 2014.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, Chairman
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A
13-CMP-00901\27
3
Words underlined are additions;Words struek- ough are deletions
*** *** *** ***are a break in text
PL20 I 20002909/CP-2013-3
Rev.5/15/14
Packet Page-32-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Exhibit A
CP-2013-3
I. URBAN DESIGNATION [Page 40]
A. Urban Mixed Use District
12. Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict
The intent of this Subdistrict, which comprises 21.7 acres, is to allow for limited small-scale
retail, office and residential uses while =- -. .'2 -- - allowing for the
development of a mixed-use development. The Activity Centers to the North and South provide
for large-scale commercial uses, while this Subdistrict is intended to promote small scale
convenience and intermediate commercial development mixed use development with
to serve existing and future residential development in the immediate
area. This Subdistrict - ------ _ _ - - ''e - _ _ _ - -. _ -
- - - --- - - e' - - will serve to reduce existing
trip lengths for small scale convenience and intermediate commercial services. Commercial
uses for the purpose of this section are limited to those permitted and conditional uses allowed
in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts except as noted below. The development of this
Subdistrict will be governed by the following criteria:
a. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD.
--- "` 2- • - - --- ---- --. The Subdistrict shall be developed with a
common theme for architecture, signage, lighting and landscaping.
c. Retail Commercial uses will be capped at a maximum of 37249 162.750 square feet
of gross floor area e" -_ _ _ - _ _ _
.'e - - -; - - ' ' - - Residential uses are allowed at a
density of 11 dwelling units per acre, calculated based upon the entire Subdistrict
acreage, yielding a maximum of 239 dwelling units.
fe. Maximum lot coverage for buildings is capped at 35% for the total project.
g. - - °• - - -- - --- . - - - - -
l + g
• - _ -- = :- = = - - - - - - --
-e- e - -- - e - - - - - _ - - - - • - --- -
f. - ._-- - - - - -- - ' - - - - . Residential uses shall not
be integrated with commercial uses in the same building.•
-- - - - -° = For each acre of land utilized for residential
1
[Single underline text is added;single strike gh text is deleted—approved by CCPC 5/15/141
Packet Page-33-
6/10/2014 9.A.
purposes, 7,500 square feet of commercial buildable square footage will be
eliminated from the total square footage allowable. For each acre of commercial
square footage built, 11 residential units will be eliminated from the maximum
allowable number of residential units.
nah. Pedestrian connections are encouraged to all perimeter properties.
Pl. - - - -- - - • - -_-- Individual commercial users shall be limited to a
maximum gross floor area of 100,000 4 88D square feet. Common stairs,
ej. No building shall exceed three stories in height with no allowance for under building
parking.
pk. Drive-through establishments will shall be limited to a maximum of four. Only one of
these drive-through establishments shall be allowed for a fast-food restaurant, and
no drive-through establishment shall have banks-with-no more than three drive-
through lanes_;these All drive-through lanes must be architecturally integrated into
the main building.
el. We gGasoline service stations and convenience stores with fuel pumps are
prohibited. wilt-be-permitted.
cm.All buildings will shall be connected with pedestrian pathways features.
Sn. -- - - -- -- - ' • - - '--• - - "et- . -
Road. A twenty-foot wide Type C landscape buffer shall be required along all other
perimeter property lines adjacent to residential use.
adjacent to this Subdistrict.
2
[Single,underline text is added;single stfilie-thigh text is deleted—approved by CCPC 5/15/14]
Packet Page-34-
6/10/2014 9.A.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to consider approving the 2013 Cycle 1 of Growth Management Plan
Amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for
review and Comments response. (Transmittal Hearing)
OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to review the 2013 cycle 1 of
amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and consider approving
said amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.
CONSIDERATIONS:
• Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted
Growth Management Plan.
• The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency"
under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for the 2013 cycle 1 petitions
on September 19, 2013 (petitions CP-2013-1, CP-2013-3 and CP-2013-4).
• This Transmittal hearing for the 2013 cycle 1 considers amendments to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map.
Note: Because the support materials are voluminous, and some exhibits are oversized, the
Agenda Central system does not contain all of the related documents pertaining to these GMP
amendment petitions. The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials, is
included in the binders provided separately to the BCC specifically for the 2013 cycle 1 of GMP
amendment petitions. The complete binder is available for review in the Comprehensive
Planning Section office at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, as well as in the Clerk of
Courts/Minutes and Records office at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401. Or, see
http://www.colliergov.net/index.aspx?page=2460.
Petition PL20130000139/CP-2013-1 is a petition submitted by iStar Development Company, SFI
Naples Reserve, LLC, and Wilton Land Company, LLC, requesting amendments to the Urban
Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Density Rating System in the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) to allow the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Credits from any Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands to be used in the Naples Reserve PUD. A
portion of the Naples Reserve PUD is designated Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and a
portion is designated RFMUD Receiving Lands. The FLUE presently limits the use of TDR
Credits in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to those derived from RFMUD Sending
Lands located within one (1) mile of the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict boundary. The
Naples Reserve PUD is located approximately 11/2 miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), and
approximately 1/2 mile north of US 41 East, north of the Reflection Lakes development (Walnut
Lakes PUD), in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. The purpose of the re-designation
is to remove the limitation on where TDR Credits may be derived so as to allow the Naples
Reserve PUD to obtain TDR Credits from distant RFMUD Sending Lands.
During the creation of the RFMUD GMP amendments, it was asserted by some that the [then
proposed] Sending Lands located closest to the Urban Residential Fringe were of higher value,
1
Packet Page-35-
6/10/2014 9.A.
therefore should receive a higher compensation, perhaps a greater number of TDR Credits per
five acres than other Sending Lands. The RFMUD GMP amendments were adopted without a
different compensation ratio but the amendments did restrict the usage of TDR Credits in the
Urban Residential Fringe to only those derived from Sending Lands located within one mile.
Stated differently, TDR Credits derived from Sending Lands located greater than one mile from
the Urban Residential Fringe cannot be used in the Urban Residential Fringe. The proposed
amendment would remove that restriction but only for the Naples Reserve PUD.
Staff analysis of this petition is included in the CCPC Staff Report.
Petition PL20120002909/CP-2013-3 is a petition submitted by McGuire Development Company
requesting amendments to the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) to: a) modify the intent section so as to no longer require small scale, mixed use
development; b) eliminate the requirement to develop a mixed use project, i.e. no longer require
development of residential uses; c) eliminate the cap on retail uses square feet/acre; d) eliminate
the cap on office uses square feet/acre; e) eliminate the maximum building footprint (of 15,000
square feet); f) eliminate the requirement to develop a specified portion of total square feet in
multi-story buildings; g) eliminate the restriction on drive-through establishments to banks only,
and add allowance for four establishments with drive-through facilities; h) eliminate the internal
access requirement; i) eliminate the requirement for all sides of buildings to have a common
architectural theme; j) eliminate the specified buffer requirement along Airport Road; k)
eliminate the specified landscape buffer requirement along all other property lines; 1) eliminate
the screening requirement for parking areas; m) add allowance for maximum of 50% of the total
square feet to be within multi-tenant buildings (shopping centers/plazas); and, n) add correlating
reduction of commercial square feet to number of residential units and visa versa. The result of
these proposed amendments is that the site could now be developed as all residential or all
commercial; if developed all commercial, it could now be all retail or all office; commercial uses
could now include "big box" stores (up to 100,000 sq. ft.) and shopping centers/plazas; building
profiles could now be uniform (all the same story/height) rather than varying; other uses with
drive-through facilities besides banks would now be allowed, and up to four of them;
architectural standards and landscape buffer requirements would now be as per the Land
Development Code rather than more stringent. In short, development would be allowed similar
to Activity Centers except uses limited to C-1 —C-3.
At the CCPC hearing, the petition agents asserted numerous errors in the CCPC staff report
pertaining to available commercial inventory, and a petition consultant spoke about local market
conditions. Upon staff and CCPC request, the agents agreed to provide the information and
statements they provided to the CCPC in written form. The agents have submitted a petition
supplement (Memorandum dated October 3, 2013) which reflects the substance of their
comments at the CCPC meeting. It includes parameters for site selection and analysis.
There is a difference in perspective between the petitioner and staff. The petitioner has
demonstrated there is a limited supply of available vacant lands that would accommodate C-1
through C-3 uses within the site's market area but has not demonstrated a demand for such
vacant lands. Staff has consistently requested the demand analysis be provided for such GMP
amendments, which typically consists of population data, disposable income, etc. in order to
2
Packet Page-36-
6/10/2014 9.A.
�-. determine supportable commercial acreage within the identified market area. Staff views the
demand for additional commercial from an inventory perspective (and recognizes that variables
for the commercial lands inventory include location, size, depth, zoning intensity, etc.) —is there
a need/demand for more commercial in the subject area? If there isn't, then adding more
commercial may negatively impact lands already designated and/or zoned for commercial. Staff
does not view the demand, or lack thereof, for additional commercial as an indicator of success
or failure for the subject site; that is determined by the market.
In considering the appropriateness of location, staff notes this site is at a mid-block location
proposing uses—including big box up to 100,000 square feet - which the GMP generally directs
to Activity Centers which are located at major intersections. Additional staff analysis of this
petition is included in the CCPC Staff Report.
Petition PL20130000365/CP-2013-4 is a petition submitted by Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc.
requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map to change the designation of the Olde
Florida Golf Club property from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands to Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District Receiving Lands. The Olde Florida Golf Club comprises 553.7 acres and is
located on the north side [at the easterly terminus] of Vanderbilt Beach Road, two miles east of
Collier Boulevard(CR 951), in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East.
With this re-designation, the property would be allowed all uses and densities, and be subject to
all development standards, of the Receiving Lands designation, including use of TDR Credits to
increase the maximum density from presently allowed 1 dwelling unit/5 acres to 1 dwelling
�-. unit/acre. If this GMP amendment is adopted, then the property will need to be rezoned from the
RFMUO Neutral Lands zoning overlay to the RFMUO Receiving Lands zoning overlay.
Staff analysis of this petition is included in the CCPC Staff Report.
FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of these three
amendments. Petition fees account for staff review time and materials, and for the cost of
associated legal advertising/public notice.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality. A majority vote of
the Board is needed for transmittal to DEO. --HFAC
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of these proposed amendments by the Board
for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity will commence the
Department's thirty-day (30) review process and ultimately return these amendments to the
Planning Commission and the Board for final Adoption hearings to be held in 2014.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The site of petition CP-2013-4 contains State and County
jurisdictional wetlands (previously deemed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional
wetlands), and listed plant and/or animal species may occur on site. An existing conservation
easement(s) encompasses some or all of these wetlands. -Further, as part of the process of
obtaining subsequent development orders (e.g. site development plan), the site will be subject to
all applicable local, state and federal environmental protection regulations, including applicable
3
Packet Page-37-
6/10/2014 9.A.
portions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management
Plan, and the Land Development Code.
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Petition CP-2013-4 contains one identified
archaeological site. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders (e.g. site
development plan), the site will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal protection
regulations relevant to historical and archeological sites.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC forward petitions CP-2013-1 and CP-2013-4
to the Board with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity, and that the CCPC forward petition CP-2013-3 to the Board with a
recommendation not to approve, as submitted, for transmittal to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity but to approve one of two alternatives provided in the CCPC Staff
Report.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC forwarded petition CP-2013-1 to the Board with a recommendation to approve for
transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (vote: 6/0). There was one
public speaker, opposed to this petition due to affect upon owners of Sending Lands within one
mile of the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict.
The CCPC forwarded petition CP-2013-3 to the Board with a recommendation to approve for
transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity(vote: 6/0), subject to changes to:
(a) cap individual user size at 100,000 square feet; (b) limit to one fast food restaurant with drive
through facility; (c) prohibit convenience store use; (d) reduce residential density to a maximum
of 11 units/acre; and, (e) incorporate select text changes from staff's Alternative #1 text in the
CCPC staff report. The CCPC's motion is reflected in the Resolution Exhibit A text for this
petition. Additionally, the CCPC's motion expressed desire for the owner to pay his fair share
towards cost of a traffic signal at project entrance, should a signal be warranted in the future —
and acknowledged such a condition would be appropriate at time of rezoning. Note: A PUD
amendment petition for the Buckley PUD is presently under review and is anticipated to be heard
on the same schedule as the Adoption hearings for this GMP amendment petition. There were
two public speakers,both in support.
The CCPC forwarded petition CP-2013-4 to the Board with a recommendation to approve for
transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (vote: 6/0). There were two
public speakers - one in support, and one expressing concerns about impact upon wildlife in the
area.
Prepared By: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Planning
and Zoning Department, Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation
Attachments: 1) CP-2013-1 CCPC Staff Report; 2) CP-2013-1 Resolution with Exhibit"A"text;
3) CP-2013-3 Memorandum(petition supplement) dated October 3, 2013; 4) CP-2013-3 CCPC
Staff Report; 5) CP-2013-3 Resolution with Exhibit"A"text; 6) CP-2013-4 CCPC Staff Report;
7) CP-2013-4 Resolution with Exhibit"A"map
Executive Summary Transmittal 2013 Cycle I GMPAs4-Final
G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2013 Cycles&Small Scale Petitions\2013 Cycle 1—February dw/10-29-13
��
4
Packet Page-38-
6/10/2014 9.A.
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/PLANNING AND REGULATION, PLANNING
AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION
HEARING DATE: September 19, 2013
RE: PETITION CP-2013-1 /PL-2013-0000139, Growth Management Plan Amendment
(TRANSMITTAL HEARING)
APPLICANTS/OWNERS/AGENTS:
iStar Development Company Wilton Land Company, LLC
Donald E. Mears, Jr., Vice President David Torres, President
3232 West Lake Mary Boulevard, Suite 1410 3921 Prospect Avenue,
Lake Mary, Florida 32746 Naples, Florida 34104
SFI Naples Reserve, LLC
c/o iStar Financial, Inc.
1114 Avenue of the Americas, 39th Floor
• New York, New York 10036
Robert j. Muihere, FAICP. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, Florida 34110 Naples, Florida 34103
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
introduce text-based exceptions from certain Transfer of Development Rights limitations, but are
not site specific. However, text amendments relate to two identifiable geographic areas of origin
and destination: those Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands located beyond
one (1) mile from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF), and; that portion of the URF
located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East - commonly known as the Naples
Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD). This PUD is located approximately 1%
miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), and approximately V mile north of US 41 East, north
of the Reflection Lakes development (Walnut Lakes PUD).
REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
text of the Growth Management Plan to introduce specific exceptions from Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program limitations, affecting the transfer of TDR credits among
properties in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Urban Residential Fringe
(URF) Subdistrict.
- 1 -
CP-2013-1/PL20130000139
2013-1, iStar Development:allowing TDR transfers into Naples Reserve RPUD
Packet Page-39-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Presently, properties located within the URF may only receive TDR credits from the RFMUD
Sending Lands located within 1 mile of the URF boundary. Stated differently, TDR credits may
be transferred from any RFMUD Sending Lands to any RFMUD Receiving Lands and Urban
area receiving lands except that TDR credits from Sending Lands beyond 1 mile of the URF
boundary cannot be transferred into the URF. This amendment would allow the transfer of TDR
credits originating more distant than one (1) mile from the URF boundary for use in [the URF
portion of] the Naples Reserve PUD. Adoption of these amendments would grant new rights to
the co-applicant's property to utilize TDRs from distant RFMUD Sending Lands. (CP-2013-1
Resolution Exhibit A reflects the petitioner's proposed text changes)
SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Note: For purposes unique to this application, there are two geographic areas-
those RFMUD Sending Lands located beyond one mile from the Urban
Residential Fringe (URF), with origination TDRs, and the Naples Reserve
Residential PUD, the TDR destination.
Subject !TDR origination! RFMUD Sending Lands: The subject Sending Lands area is
zoned A-RFMUO, Sending Lands (Rural Agricultural District, Rural Fringe Mixed Use-Sending
Lands Overlay) and some portions contain one or more of the MHO, Mobile Home Overlay,
NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay, and NRPA, Natural Resources Protection Area Overlay;
and, the area is designated Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands
(and some portions are within one or more of the North Belle Meade Overlay and the Natural
Resource Protection Area Overlay on the Future Land Use Map. These lands are largely
undeveloped. Residential density is permitted at 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or legal non-
conforming lot/parcel of record. Permitted non-residential uses are limited to: agricultural uses,
consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act; habitat preservation and conservation uses;
passive parks and other passive recreational uses; sporting and recreational camps; limited
essential services; and oil extraction and related processing.
Subiect [TDR destination] Residential PUD Site: The subject site is zoned Naples Reserve
RPUD and designated partly Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving
Lands and partly Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF)
on the Future Land Use Map. The ±688 acre subject site is undeveloped and the PUD provides
for a maximum gross density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre.
Surrounding Lands:
North of the [TDR destination] Naples Reserve RPUD: Land to the north of the subject
RPUD is zoned A-RFMUO, Sending Lands and within the NRPA Overlay, and designated
Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, overlaid by the Belle Meade
Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) on the Future Land Use Map. These lands lie inside
the Picayune Strand State Forest and are owned by the State of Florida. Public lands are not
part of the TDR program.
West of the(TDR destination]Naples Reserve RPUD: Land to the west of the subject RPUD
is zoned Winding Cypress PUD/DRI (Development of Regional Impact) and partially developed
as Verona Walk. The Future Land Use designation is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Fringe Subdistrict and Urban Residential Subdistrict.
-2 -
CP-2013-1/PL20130000139
2013-1, iStar Development: aIInwinn TnR trancfars into Naples Reserve RPUD
Packet Page-40-
6/10/2014 9.A.
South of the [TDR destination] Naples Reserve RPUD: Land to the south of the subject
RPUD is zoned Walnut Lakes PUD and developed as Reflection Lakes of Naples; and,
undeveloped land zoned A, Rural Agricultural. These lands are designated Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map.
East of the [TDR destination] Naples Reserve RPUD: Across Greenway Road, land to the
east of the subject RPUD is in agricultural use. The zoning district is A-RFMUO, Receiving
Lands and designated Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands on
the Future Land Use Map.
In summary, the existing land uses in the area immediately surrounding or directly opposite the
subject RPUD are predominately rural non-residential in nature to the north and east, and
residential to the west and south.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Background and Considerations -
History of the Rural Fringe GMP Amendments: The Governor and Cabinet issued a Final
Order on June 22, 1999, pertaining to GMP amendments adopted in 1997 pursuant to the 1996
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The Final Order required the County to conduct a
Rural and Agricultural Assessment for the Rural and Conservation Designated lands within the
County, and then adopt measures to protect natural resources such as wetlands, wildlife and
their habitats, and prevent the premature conversion of unique agricultural lands to other uses.
This was to be accomplished while directing incompatible land uses away from these sensitive
lands by employing creative land planning techniques.
The Final Order allowed the County to conduct this Assessment in phases. Accordingly, the
County divided the Assessment into two geographical areas, the Rural Fringe Area and the
Eastern Rural Lands Area. Relevant to this petition, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) was established. The RFMUD represents a transitional area between Golden Gate
Estates and the County's urban area, and between the urban area and vast agricultural lands
and agricultural operations farther to the east. The RFMUD consists of approximately 73,222
acres and is divided into three distinct designations: Sending Lands (±41,535 acres originally; ±
41,414 acres now), Receiving Lands a 22,020 acres originally; ± 22,373 acres now), and
Neutral Lands (± 9,667 acres originally; ± 9,427 acres now). Allowable uses, density, and
preservation standards vary by designation.
Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and
sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species.
The preservation standard for non-NRPA Sending Lands is eighty percent (80%) of the native
vegetation on site while the standard for NRPA Sending Lands is ninety percent (90%). Density
is limited to 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or 1 dwelling unit per legal non-conforming lot/parcel of
record (created on or before June 22, 1999). Transfer of development rights from Sending
Lands may occur at a rate of 1 dwelling unit per five acres (0.2 du/ac.) or 1 dwelling unit per
legal non-conforming lot/ parcel of record. Permitted non-residential uses are limited to:
agricultural uses, consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act; habitat preservation and
conservation uses; passive parks and other passive recreational uses; sporting and recreational
camps; limited essential services; and oil extraction and related processing.
Receiving Lands are those lands identified as being the most appropriate for development and
to which residential units may be received from areas designated as Sending. Lands. The
- 3 -
CP-2013-1/PL20130000139
2013-1, iStar Development: aiIrwinr,rnP tra„cfrs into Naples Reserve RPUD
Packet Page-41-
6/10/2014 9.A.
preservation standard for Receiving Lands, except for the North Belle Meade Overlay, is forty
percent (40%) of the native vegetation present, not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the
total site area to be preserved. The base residential density (non-Rural Village development) is
1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (0.2 du/ac.) or 1 dwelling unit per legal non-conforming lot/parcel of
record. The maximum density achievable for non-Rural Village development is 1 dwelling unit
per acre, through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). The minimum and maximum
density for Rural Village development within Receiving Lands is 2 and 3 dwelling units per acre,
respectively, except that the minimum density for Rural Village development on Receiving Lands
within the North Belle Meade Overlay is 1.5 dwelling units per acre. Permitted non-residential
uses are primarily the same as those uses permitted in the agricultural zoning district prior to the
Final Order(e.g. full range of agricultural uses, community facilities, recreational uses, etc.).
Neutral Lands are those lands suitable for semi-rural residential development. Generally,
Neutral lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation than lands designated as Receiving
Lands, but do not have values approaching those in the Sending Lands. The preservation
standard for Neutral Lands is sixty percent (60%) of the native vegetation present, not to exceed
forty-five percent (45%) of the total site area to be preserved. The maximum residential density
is limited to 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (0.2 du/ac.) or legal non-conforming lot/parcel of record.
These lands are "neutral" to the TDR program and do not generate or receive residential
density. Permitted non-residential uses are primarily the same as the uses permitted in the
agricultural zoning district prior to the Final Order (e.g. full range of agricultural uses, community
facilities, recreational uses, etc.).
The consultant who assisted in development of the RFMUD TDR program found a correlation
between the proximity of properties lying east of CR 951 and their land values. The higher
transitional/residential densities allowed in the Urban Residential Fringe affected these nearer
lands with higher property values while more-distant Sending Lands - which are less dense,
further removed from urban services, less acceptable, and so forth - revealed notably lower n
values.
This geographical relationship was recognized and specific limitations established to bolster
TDR values for the more proximate lands, and provided special arrangements for the transfer,
redemption and use of TDRs.
The consultant also directly addressed the TDR program, and predicted the haste which
requests to change the program to benefit only a few, or single, landowners would appear. The
County was cautioned to keep the TDR program intact [for a substantial period of time].
Changes weaken the program, diminish TDR values and discourage the viability of long-term
continuing participation.
How TDRs are Expected to Transfer Into Naples Reserve:
A number of TDRs are expected to originate from Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI land. To date,
Sending Lands located in the easternmost part of the Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI have produced
±190 [base & Early Entry bonus]TDR credits from ±475 acres.
Development Standards found in the standing Naples Reserve PUD Ordinance indicate,
"There shall be no more than 1,154 residential dwelling units permitted which provides
for a maximum gross density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre. A minimum of 612 Transfer
of Development Rights Credits shall be obtained to achieve the maximum gross density."
...with Planning provision "B" stating,
-4-
CP-2013-1/PL20130000139
2013-1, iStar Development:aIInwinn Tnrr trancffrs into Naples Reserve RPUD
Packet Page-42-
6/10/2014 9.A.
"In order to increase the residential density allowed in the Urban Mixed Use District,
Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Agricultural/Rural - Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District, Receiving Lands, 612 TDR credits shall be severed from qualifying Sending
Lands, of which a minimum of 311 TDR credits shall be severed from [qualified] Sending
Lands within one mile of the Urban Area."
The clear implication is that the remaining 301 TDR credits may be obtained from [qualified]
Sending Lands located within one mile OR beyond one mile from the Urban Area [unqualified],
as the origination TDRs pertinent to this application - despite such a transfer from beyond one
mile being inconsistent with the FLUE provision for the URF. Approximately 190 of these TDR
credits originate from Hacienda Lakes' Sending Lands - leaving 111 to be obtained from other
[qualified and/or unqualified]Sending Lands. [See calculations below.]
1154 maximum DUs in Naples Reserve **
- 612 minimum TDR credits to be severed/transferred from RFMU Sending Lands**
542 intrinsic DU density
311 = minimum TDR credits to be severed/transferred from [qualified] Sending
Lands within one mile of Urban Area [attributable to the '612'figure above]
**
301 = remaining TDR credits to be severed/transferred from [qualified and/or
unqualified] Sending Lands within one mile of Urban Area or beyond one
mile of the Urban Area [attributable to the '612'figure]
- 190 = TDR credits severed/to be transferred from Hacienda Lakes' [unqualified]
Sending Lands beyond one mile of Urban Area [attributable to the '301'
.-� figure] ***
= 111 = TDR credits to be severed/transferred from other Sending Lands located
within one mile or beyond one mile from Urban Area [attributable to the
'301'figure]
Of all Sending Lands, only those located within one mile of the Urban area qualify to transfer
TDR credits into the Urban Residential Fringe (URF).
1804 estimated TDR total in [qualified]Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban Area *
- 721 TDR credits from [qualified]Sending Lands within one mile of Urban Area already
committed to URF use *
= 1083 TDR credits in [qualified]Sending Lands within one mile of Urban Area remaining for
URF use *
For the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) lands, only a portion of them can make use of the TDR
credits available from [qualified]Sending Lands.
3249 approximate URF acres eligible for TDR use (w/ an equivalent TDR count- potential
TDR credit demand in URF) *
- 1083 TDR credits in [qualified] Sending Lands within one mile of Urban Area remaining for
URF use (potential TDR credit supply for URF)*
= 2166 approximate potential unmet need of TDR credits for URF use (potential TDR credit
demand in URF unmet by Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF boundary) *
-5 —
CP-2013-1/PL20130000139
2013-1, iStar Development:aIInwinn TnR trancfars into Naples Reserve RPUD
Packet Page-43-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Sources:
* Petitioner provided figures.
** Naples Reserve PUD Ordinance derived figures.
*** Staff provided figures.
The petitioner's eligible acreage, thus potential demand for TDR credits, in the URF includes
Winding Cypress PUD/DRI. Staff believes Winding Cypress should be excluded. It is presently
approved for 2,300 DUs (1.19 DU/A) and 796 acres of preserve. A PUD amendment presently
under review would increase this to 2,854 DUs (1.48 DU/A) and 840 acres of preserve. Phase I
of Winding Cypress (Veronawalk) has been platted, infrastructure put in place, and DUs at or
near build out. Phase II, the balance of the PUD, will contain fewer DUs than Phase I due to
environmental constraints. Almost all of the Preserve is located in Phase II; there is limited land
available for residential development.
The below figures reflect staffs exclusion of Winding Cypress PUD/DRI.
2,177 potential TDR credits demand in URF
1.083 TDR credits in Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF
1,034 approximate unmet need of TDR credits for URF use
This potential need for 2,166 TDR credits (petitioner's figure) or 1,034 TDR credits (staff's
figure) in the URF would go unmet due to the existing prohibition on transferring TDR credits
from Sending Lands beyond one mile of the URF boundary. The subject GMP amendment
would satisfy a portion of that potential unmet need for TDR credits. On the other hand, this
amendment could potentially devalue TDR credits generated from Sending Lands within one
mile of the URF by increasing the eligible supply - all Sending Lands would become eligible to
transfer TDR credits to the Naples Reserve PUD, not just those within one mile of the URF
boundary.
According to application materials, the co-applicant of this petition is the original owner of
Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI, maintains ownership of TDR credits from Hacienda Lakes, and will
sell 406 TDR credits to the Naples Reserve developer if this amendment is successful.
Accordingly, this amendment could be viewed as self-serving. Nonetheless, it may further the
success of the TDR program and protection of Sending Lands.
Environmental Impacts:
Collier County Department of Natural Resources personnel reviewed this petition and provided
the following analysis:
The majority of the land within Naples Reserve PUD was previously cleared for agricultural
purposes prior to approval of the rezone to PUD. Native vegetation occurs primarily in the
preserves on site. There is also in an existing conservation easement, in favor of the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), over the preserves.
An updated listed species survey was recently provided with the subdivision plat/plans for the
project, currently under review with the County. Listed species documented on site were all
associated with the agricultural ditches and the borrow pond on site, and consist of American
alligator, several species of wading bird and snail kite. None of these species were found to be
nesting on the subject property.
A letter provided with the original PUD rezone, from the Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources, indicates no significant archaeological or historical sites recorded for or
likely to be present within the project area. The letter also states that because of the project
- 6 -
CP-2013-1/PL20130000139
2013-1, iStar Development:allnwinn Tr)R rrancf'rs into Naples Reserve RPUD
Packet Page-44-
6/10/2014 9.A.
location and/or nature it is unlikely that any such sites will be affected. The project will be subject
to the usual requirement for accidental discovery of archaeological or historical sites as required
by Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 11.1.3. The provision is also
included in Subsection 2.03.07 E of the Land Development Code (LDC).
The proposed GMP amendment for transfer of TDRs to allow Naples Reserve to achieve its
maximum allowable density will have no affect on the requirements of the (CCME). The percent
requirements of preserves will also not change.
[Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist]
Historical and Archaeological Impacts:
The historical and archaeological characteristics inherent to the subject property are addressed
in the Naples Reserve PUD. The transfer of TDRs from beyond one mile from the Urban Area
does not in itself impact the site and further analysis is unnecessary.
Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element
Consistency Determination:
The traffic capacity and /traffic circulation characteristics associated with developing the subject
property are addressed in the Naples Reserve PUD. The transfer of TDRs from beyond one
mile from the Urban Area does not in itself impact these traffic characteristics and further
analysis is unnecessary.
Public Facilities Impact:
The public facilities services needed to develop the subject property are addressed in the
Naples Reserve PUD. The transfer of TDRs from beyond one mile from the Urban Area does
not in itself impact these services and further analysis is unnecessary.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS:
A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F was [duly
advertised, noticed and] held on Thursday, August 22, 2013, 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County
South Regional Library, Meeting Rm. "B", located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples. Two
people other than the applicant's team and County staff attended - and heard the following
information:
The applicant's agent provided a full description of the proposed amendment to the group,
including how the transfer of TDR credits will be allowed to the Naples Reserve PUD located in
the Urban Residential Fringe (URF)from Rural Fringe Mixed Used District Sending Lands.
No one in attendance expressed opposition to the changes. The meeting was completed by
5:40 p.m.
[Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
The following findings and conclusions result from the reviews and analyses of this request:
• Impact upon the TDR program could be noteworthy. A number of TDR credits originally
intended for use in areas of designated Receiving Lands will be redirected to the Urban
Residential Fringe-a reallocation of TDR credits.
• This GMP amendment could potentially devalue TDR credits generated from Sending
Lands within one mile of the URF.
-7 -
CP-2013-1/P120130000139
2013-1, iStar Development: alinwinn T()R trancfars into Naples Reserve RPUD
Packet Page-45-
6/10/2014 9.A.
• This GMP amendment would satisfy a portion of the potential unmet need in the Urban
Residential Fringe for TDR credits.
• Though this amendment could be viewed as self-serving, it may further the success of
the TDR program and protection of Sending Lands.
• Correlating amendments to the Naples Reserve PUD may be submitted subsequent to,
or concurrent with the Adoption phase of this GMPA application.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This staff report has been approved as to form and legality by the Office of the County Attorney.
[HFACJ
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP-2013-1 to the Board of
County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve this petition for transmittal to
the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.
PREPARED BY:
. ._.... f 1r /
CORBY SCHMIDT,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
- COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
REVIEWED BY:
,
( s ,!
DATE: ' �;
s . - �\
DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN MANAGER
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
REVIEWED BY:
•
—ter
= DATE: )
MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
APPR• ED BY:
•
dor
lJ i
Lam' DATE: ( 3 �IJ
V'9'C A S A UI r' AD RATOR
G'-OWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
PETITION NO.: CP-2013-1 /PL-2013-0000139
Staff Report for the September 19, 2013, CCPC Meeting.
NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the November 12, 2013, BCC Meeting.
— 8 -
CP-2013-1/PL20130000139
2013-1, iStar Development: allnwinn TDR trancffrs into Naples Reserve RPUD
Packet Page-46-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/PLANNING AND REGULATION,
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT,
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION
HEARING DATE: September 19, 2013
RE: PETITION NO. PL20120002909/CP-2013-3, BUCKLEY MIXED USE
SUBDISTRICT—GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
(TRANSMITTAL HEARING)
AGENTS/APPLICANT/OWNER:
Agent: Tim Hancock,AICP
Davidson Engineering
4365 Radio Road, Suite 201
Naples, Florida 34103
Agent: R. Bruce Anderson, Esq.
Roetzel &Andress Law Firm
850 Park Shore Drive, Third Floor
Naples, Florida 34104
Applicant: McGuire Development Company
560 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14202
Owner: Airport Pulling Orange Blossom, LLC
560 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14202
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject site contains approximately 21.7 acres and is located at 7501 Airport Road (CR 31), on the
west side of Airport Road, north of Orange Blossom Drive, approximately .23 miles south of Vanderbilt
Beach Road (and approximately 1.55 miles north of Pine Ridge Road), in Section 2, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See aerial map on the following page.)
- 1 -
Packet Page-47-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
r.
A ;I t r. n "P'-'s k t
ik,
`r ' 2 y• i r i .' r -"-.;fii .5 ,
{��" 'f F - +11 t-.i"--r 2E=' +f . K%LK18[@"w1E .SWtMRwr,.
..x"..,: a s .�Fc C3
'ark r ._%y��tt �C f$ '� c ��€
ter'
ill*�Ii Nq li ;a y4` �5 ~ + *~X w • t r. s41"'"4Mt.lPMafIF Y3 +u x,xvwry tM 4 .''! : "'..+.e','*i.°"i:�+x +q n,-
�t-� ,yam %": F - '�,„;- "'"- .+.. �� °T`- ''' '" ,, +y k "j�1'N'1
[ �� ��.' S f f k",
• 7
°n\i ''''"''''41.:i 4 C ��"(�^. ! A11... �•r 7 11 3�`.1._... '�.AO q
° � 1s i _s a aia i 4� e.^ ° :.i 5 *,, �$as
s+� '!��1+�' ' �R ' .r ., -�:: '" .: a'"S mss.'•
y+tj� r
st e-9.-}, ,. > - yy gyy
T^ �l r
„ tr 4 I 0 4 0.4i4.,
�'�' t -0.4.. r c yea.
err � ,t» Y.»..-"-,a.:.r'.".,.,.� —ri �„.
„ 3.
.k i � ,r r .-.�.5' .. ' .ate b.w.. 1 ..ff-
REQUESTED ACTION:
This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text by amending the Urban Mixed
Use District, specifically the existing Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict to remove the office and retail square
feet caps; allow up to 7,500 square feet of gross floor area of commercial uses per acre or 15 residential
dwelling units per acre; to make residential development optional; to prohibit commercial and residential
uses on the same parcel; to limit multi-tenant commercial buildings to no more than 50% of the
commercial square footage in order to provide for stand-alone commercial development; and, to revise
development standards, including the elimination of the cap on the size of commercial building footprints.
The petitioner's proposed text changes, shown in strike-through/underline format (words underlined are
added, words struck through are deleted.), are as follows [This text is reflected in the Resolution Exhibit
A; staff-recommended alternative text is located at the end of this Report]:
Proposed Future Land Use Element Text Amendment: [page 41]
C. Urban Mixed Use District
12. Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict
The intent of this Subdistrict is to allow for limited small scale retail, office and residential uses while
-- - .-- -- -- - - .- -- allowing for the development of a mixed-use development. The
Activity Centers to the North and South provide for large-scale commercial uses, while this Subdistrict is
intended to promote small scale convenience and intermediate commercial development mix, ,use
=raj.; • - _-•- - - - - •e.- to serve existing and future residential development in the
immed area. This Subdistrict is intended to be an example for future mixed use nodes, providing
- --- - - ---- - - -: will serve to reduce existing trip
lengths for small ccalc convenience and intermediate commercial services. Commercial uses for the
purpose of this section are limited to those allowed in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts except as
noted below. The development of this Subdistrict will be governed by the following criteria:
a. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD.
-2-
Packet Page-48-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
b. A unified planned development with common architectural theme, which utilizes shared
parking and cross accesses. -
c. Retail Commercial uses will be capped at a maximum of 372-58 7.500 square feet per acre for
the total project.
e. Residential development for multi-family dwelling units will be subject to a maximum of 15
dwelling units per acre for the total project.
f. Maximum lot coverage for buildings is capped at 35% for the total project.
g. No more than -°. _ - - - - -- ' -- --- --50% of the commercial square footage may be constructed as multi-tenant buildings.
j. All four sides of each building must be utilized in a common architectural theme.•- "e-• - -- - - -- -- -- - - --- -°• - •- - - . -e - - - - - • e-• . - e-
.
- -- -e e- - - -- - - - - - --- --- - - - . ... - -- -
uses.
I. Residential units may be located throughout the Subdistrict, as stand-alone development.
m. Integration of residential and office or retail uses in the same building is encouraged. A
- .--• --- ---••-- -.- For each acre of land utilized for residential purposes, 7,500
square feet of commercial buildable square footage will be eliminated for the total square
footage allowable. For each acre of commercial square footage built, 15 residential units will
be eliminated from the maximum allowable number of residential units.
n. Pedestrian connections are encouraged to all perimeter properties.
e. - -- - - -- - - - - -- ... - -- -.
p. No building shall exceed three stories in height with no allowance for under building parking.
q. Drive-through establishments will be limited to a maximum of 4. Blaanks with shall have no
more than three drive-through lanes; these drive-through lanes must be architecturally
integrated into the main building.
r. No gasoline service stations will be permitted
s. All buildings will be connected with pedestrian features.
t. _ -- _•e -- -- ` -- - -- -- ---
t w e n t y--foot wide Type C landscape buffer shall be required along all ether perimeter property
lines adjacent to residential use.
u. Parking areas must be screened from Airport Pulling Road and from any properties adjacent
to this Subdistrict.
SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION:
Subject Site: The subject site is zoned PUD, Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit Development zoning
district, and designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict) on the Future
Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The subject site is vacant and mostly cleared.
The existing Subdistrict requires integrated residential and commercial mixed use development; allows a
maximum density of up to 15 dwelling units per acre; allows up to 3,250 sq. ft. per acre or up to 70,525
sq. ft. of retail uses and up to 4,250 sq. ft. per acre or up to 92,225 sq. ft. of office uses; and contains
specific project development standards.
-3 -
Packet Page -49-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
Surrounding Lands:
North: Brighton Gardens PUD; assisted living facility development; Urban Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Subdistrict
West: Emerald Lakes PUD; single-family residential development; Urban Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Subdistrict
South: A, Rural Agricultural zoning district, with a Conditional Use for essential service uses; Collier
County Headquarters Library and other governmental uses; Urban Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Subdistrict
East: Across Airport Rd. (C.R.31), Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens PUD; and, A, Rural
Agricultural zoning district, with a Conditional Use for a church; single-family residential
development and St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church; Urban Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Subdistrict
In summary, the current zoning and existing and planned land uses in the immediate area surrounding
the subject property are residential, institutional and community facility uses.
BACKGROUND and PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Establishment of the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict (GMP amendment — CP-2001-2, adopted
5/14/02 by Ord. No. 2002-24)
Prior to the establishment of the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, the subject property was zoned
Agricultural and used as a plant nursery. The property at that time was eligible for up to 3 dwelling units
per acre (without density bonuses) and a variety of community facility uses and institutional uses, e.g.,
child care facilities, churches and places of worship, assisted living facilities, adult care facilities, nursing
homes, social and fraternal organizations; public and private schools; recreation and open space uses; a
variety of agricultural uses; and, essential services.
In 2001, the property owner submitted a Growth Management Plan amendment application for a
residential and commercial integrated mixed use project. The owner established specific development
criteria, a residential density cap of 15 dwelling units per acre, and retail and office caps to ensure the
development of a traditional mixed use project on the site.
County staff recommended approval of the Subdistrict to the Board of County Commissioners, despite
the substantial supply of commercial acreage within the nearby Activity Centers and within other
commercial Subdistricts proximate to the subject site, based solely on the premise that the project would
provide a bona fide mixed use development that was consistent with County residents' vision for `new'
development as detailed in the County's Community Character Plan.
The Board of County Commissioners subsequently approved the Subdistrict as a live-work-play
development which promotes walkability, provides for housing opportunities at various price points, and
includes provisions for small-scale neighborhood-serving commercial at a pedestrian scale.
Proposed Project
The proposed amendment to the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict changes the project entirely from its
original form. Foremost, the amendment eliminates the required residential and commercial mixed use
component from the Subdistrict by making residential development on the site optional, and eliminates
the various design elements integral to developing a mixed use project. The proposed project promotes
strip and/or big-box shopping center development — typically characterized by oversized parking lots,
excessive signage, and total dependence on the automobile for access and circulation. -
-4-
Packet Page -50-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
The table below provides a summary of the existing and proposed Subdistrict regulations.
Buckley Mixed Use Existing Proposed
Subdistrict Regulations Regulations
Density 326 units (15 DU/A) 326 units (15 DU/A)
Integrated Residential &
Commercial Development Required Eliminated
Residential Development Required Optional
Zoning Intensity C-1, C-2, C-3 C-1, C-2, C-3
Retail sq. ft. CAP 3,250 sq. ft./ac. or 70,525 sq. ft. Eliminated
Office sq. ft. CAP 4,250 sq. ft./ac. or 92,225 sq. ft. Eliminated
Total Commercial Sq. Ft. 162,750 sq. ft. 162,750 sq. ft.
Development Standards
75% of the total built sq. ft. must
Multi-story buildings be multi-story buildings Eliminated
Access must be interior to the
Primary Retail and Commercial site; secondary accesses Eliminated
Entrances required for buildings fronting
Airport Road.
Building Height 3-stories 3-stories
Maximum Building Footprint 15,000 sq. ft. Eliminated
All sides must have common Eliminated — Now subject to
Building (Sides) architectural theme LDC requirements
Drive-through Establishments Banks only Maximum of 4 drive-through
establishments
Landscape buffer along Airport Eliminated — Now subject to
Road 20 ft., Type D buffer LDC requirements
Buffering along perimeter Eliminated — Now subject to
property lines, except Airport Rd. 20 ft., Type C buffer LDC requirements
Screening of parking areas Required (Airport Rd. and from Eliminated — Now subject to
properties adj. to Subdistrict) LDC requirements
Mixed-use projects, including the traditional residential over commercial development, and those with
office over retail and stand-alone residential on the same site, provide a desirable lifestyle for residents.
These developments promote active living, provide housing opportunities at varying price points, provide
accessibility to shopping and leisure activities without the dependence on automobiles, and provide a
focal point and sense of place for its residents. There are many examples of mixed use developments
working throughout the country. Locally, there are varying types of mixed use developments — town
centers (Village Walk), village centers (Island Walk and Verona Walk), main streets (5th Ave. South and
3rd Street South) and mixed use residential over commercial (Mercato, Bayfront, and Ave Maria). These
sites are larger than the proposed subject site; however, the mixed-use concept can be creatively applied
to infill properties such as the approved Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict (refer to the approved Buckley
Mixed Use PUD building sketch and conceptual master plan on page 7).
-5-
Packet Page-51-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
Examples of Local Mixed-Use Development
Mercato, Naples 3�d Street South (retail/office), Naples
•
�Lw ,.,:
1i r r ;
a
f•
F , . .
T.. ' - ' . 1,„r i .,-;:tIvik.,4,..,'a . - .
•
- ' r 4-:''.- ''. '
.. ....„ .,,. .
,.
..„ ... ,.. ... . .
, „,„ . ,
Mixed Use-Mercato,Digital Image.FL Commercial.Mon.26 August 2013. Mixed Use-3
<Ilcommercial.com> rd,Digital Image.Voices.yahoo.Mon.26 August 2013.<voicesyahoo,com>
Coconut Point, Estero Bayfront, Naples
<,.:w .. -ice._ ..„,:^—...
y, 4 i 't I l M
w
a
r f 6 �_.
r.:*
,
Mixed Use-Coconut Point,Digital image.Sellingestero.Mon.26 August 2013. Mixed Use-Bayfront,Digital image.Loopnet.Web,26 2013.<loopnet com>
<sellingestero.com>
Ave Maria, Naples
Lt `. -”
�.'
,� t _
e
����w.� � '.04'� .t,1, .� r:tf:� �� Ill' � � {—...'.: -. .1. . , ,,....1jr: ..: 14,va.,,..,
. tri.
,
Mixed Use—Ave Maria Naples.Digital image.The Va/ent nes Projects.Mon 26 August 2013.<thevalent nesweb.com projects/avemaria.php>
- 6-
Packet Page-52-
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Age 6/10/2014 9.A.
Approved Buckley PUD
P
/..., R(
-47*-
rlfr7....- -47- 41?--'' 'eir)..--1110,1 i 1 ,
1LJJ : ; f rnF U 3 t ,.....
,i,
. ....„,„,,:..„,f,„;:_ir ....4„4,...„:„±„. ...1 , I
f
_Aillit
_.� 1 ,,
t
tx * S
111.1 .; :.0, milk s
s ! 1
_._.. .� I
ANN . I
il ,i -.tz
1.____ ........4-T1 , -----
to _
3
Ji MP
i iL =-.y
i - ,. ;
1 4 `II ,416Z7
i_ M _,Sim • d1°4*'.
-7-
Packet Page-53-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Appropriateness of Change
If approved as submitted, this Growth Management Plan amendment will potentially result in the
introduction of varying types of commercial development—big-box, fast-food, 24-hour convenience, etc.,
and other activities — to an area not contemplated for these uses. Consequently, the proposed
amendment has the potential for impacting the stability of residential and other established uses within
the immediate area.
The suitability of the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment to accommodate the petition's
request is to be established through an evaluation of relevant and appropriate data for population growth,
commercial inventory, infrastructure development, and other considerations in the surrounding area.
The compatibility of potential big-box development, fast-food restaurants, 24-hour convenience
commercial development, etc. with its surrounding land uses will need to be addressed in the
consideration of the companion Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment request.
Density Allowances pursuant to the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Density Bonus Provisions
Base Density(applicable to subject site)
• Urban Mixed Use District, Residential Subdistrict— Up to 4 dwelling units per acre
Bonus Densities
• Activity Center— Up to 16 dwelling units per acre
• Proximity to a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center (Residential Density Band) —
Up to 3 additional dwelling units per acre
• Affordable Housing — Up to 8 additional dwelling units per acre
• Roadway Access — Up to 1 additional dwelling unit per acre
• Residential Infill development— Up to 3 additional dwelling units per acre
• Conversion of Commercial Zoning — Up to 16 dwelling units per acre
• Transfer of Development Rights—variable unit count
• Transportation Concurrency Management Area — Up to 3 dwelling units per acre
The proposed amendment to the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict allows for the retention of the project's
residential density of up to 15 dwelling units per acre without developing a mixed use project or
complying with the various FLUE density bonus provisions identified above. It should be noted that the
density approved for this mixed use development was deemed compatible with other densities in the
area; however, those projects with similar high densities complied with the provisions of the FLUE
(density bonuses or clustering).
Commercial Development and Analysis
Commercial development is not planned or approved adjacent to the subject site. However, there is a
substantial amount of commercial development planned or developed within a 1-mile and 2-mile radius
from the subject site.
The subject project is located within the segment of Airport Road (CR 31) between Vanderbilt Beach
Road and Pine Ridge Road (CR 896), anchored at each of these intersections by Mixed Use Activity
Center Commercial Subdistricts. The Activity Centers (see red squares on page 9 map) were
comprehensively planned to provide sufficient commercial development opportunities. These planned
locations are purposely sized and spatially arranged to encourage and support the business environment
and to discourage and avoid over commercialization and strip development throughout the County.
- 8-
Packet Page-54-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013 3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
Activity Centers Proximate to the Subject Site
li{ � ,,,.„4111 a Raw r'� M_4 ass! -' c�<; s',. aqui r4.-7; 0."14g I—, 010.„.,,,,wr- '.,.,,,..-;-„ti„:,_
,� _ i ids ` ,{•.. s ..:it, �„-. ',- � .r �
.', r-21,—.4k—'"', ,, 10,„siti gm— ,:„._,.j, r.16,47, iN,,,EF4,. ai...
3.t 'i a r oman a x l r � a �� ..,.--."'''..41"**g.,01".".. ,"e , .
,..,, ..,„:„ ,..,...i., ...., lat, ..,r0r..416.- :•---..,--?—;I i.-',;-'t ''' 1,‘"4 ' '''.(fialliirit:.`alakitTeN.,.4";—:"41T..-7,„.... ., r'-', Won 0 R� ° a w ie a k i. . . . ce r _�� a i- ' c^ , ter fn .1 ,, d-0,e" ApK.6' *
c
15:4-0-'; 1 --- 4 1 t EiN441='-'-21.:- - .;''..
": 4::',1Z- ' P 411:'?T''''---infit0., _„..woomma..im..: ._., _firt,„,„,,,,,,,,,,,„„ ,
--„..„.„, ,-i_ ..-:,,,..,...., mriRterigtroriimIt....-4-
1
Activity Center # 11 (Airport Rd. and Vanderbilt Beach Rd.): The mid-point of this Activity Center is
located approximately % mile north of the subject site (refer to green area on above map) and the
closest commercial zoning and development is ±500 feet north of the Subdistrict. The Center consists of
/
approximately 188 acres and is permitted for up to ±1,249,600 square feet of commercial development.
The range of uses includes, but is not limited to: restaurants, retail, and office — situated on stand-alone
sites and within the traditional shopping center configuration.
Below is a summary of developed and undeveloped commercial acreage within Activity Center 11:
® Southwest Quadrant of Airport Rd. &Vanderbilt Beach Rd. —Walgreen's PUD (15.68 ac./156,800
sq. ft, with 78,904 sq. ft. undeveloped); Fountain Park PUD (10.14 ac./71,400 sq. ft.); and,
Venetian Plaza PUD (6.02 ac./90,000 sq. ft., with 15,000 sq. ft. undeveloped)
Northwest and Northeast Quadrants of Airport Rd. Vanderbilt Beach Rd. — Pelican Marsh
PUD/DR( (80 ac./331,400 sq. ft.)
• Southeast Quadrant of Airport Rd. & Vanderbilt Beach Rd. — Vineyards PUD (75.86 ac./600,000
sq. ft, with approximately 82% of sq. ft. developed.)
Activity Center# 13 (Airport-Pulling Rd. and Pine Ridge Rd.): The mid-point of this Activity Center is
located approximately 1-mile south of the subject site (refer to green area on above map) and the
closest commercial zoning and development is +2/3 mile south of the Subdistrict. The Center consists
of 306 acres and is permitted for up to ±2,275,017 square feet of commercial development. The range
of uses includes, but is not limited to: Big box development such as "category killers" (PetCo, Sports
Authority, Bed, Bath and Beyond, Toys R Us, Staples and more), grocers, restaurants, general retail, and
office—situated on stand-atone sites and within the traditional shopping center configuration.
—9-
Packet Page-55-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
Below is a summary of developed and undeveloped commercial acreage within Activity Center 13:
• Southwest Quadrant of Airport Pulling Rd. & Pine Ridge Rd. – Falls PUD (32.50 ac./280,000 sq. —
ft.)
• Southeast Quadrant of Airport Pulling Rd. & Pine Ridge Rd. – Carillon PUD (24.01 ac./319,000 sq.
ft., with 16,641 sq. ft. undeveloped)
• Northwest and Northeast Quadrants of Airport Pulling Rd. & Pine Ridge Rd. – Pine Air Lakes
PUD/DRI (148.99 ac./1,075,000 sq. ft., with 308,453 sq. ft. undeveloped); and approximately 100
acres of non-PUD commercial zoning and with over 601,017 sq. ft. of commercial development
within these two quadrants.
Commercial Subdistricts outside of Activity Centers 11 & 13:
In addition to the commercial acreage within Activity Centers 11 and 13, there are other site-specific
commercial subdistricts located proximate to the subject site that provide commercial development
opportunities. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict – Longview Center PUD (14.75 acres/143,500 sq. ft of
commercial) located across Airport-Pulling Rd., and southeast of the subject site– Undeveloped
• Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict – Two 5-acre parcels (10
acres/74,000 sq. ft. of C-1 commercial and other uses) located across Orange Blossom Dr., south
of the subject site– Undeveloped (except existing Italian American clubhouse facility)
The above-listed commercial sites (Activity Center and non-Activity Center) provide a total of over
3,742,117 square feet of commercial use opportunities in all commercial category ranges, including but
not limited to, professional and general office, convenience, intermediate or neighborhood serving,
general or community serving, and, etc.
Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Amendment: The proposed changes to this Subdistrict could —
potentially add up to 162,700 sq. ft. of community serving commercial land uses, including big-box
development (e.g. large scale sporting goods, auto supply, office supply, pet supply, discount
supermarket, etc.), 24-hour convenience and/or strip-style neighborhood shopping, banks, fast-food
restaurants, etc., in an area already saturated with these same uses, and on a transitional infill site
suitable for lower intensity commercial development. Conversely, development of a mixed use project
would provide housing opportunities at varying price points, shopping and employment opportunities for
the residents within the community, and provide a development that is complimentary and of a scale
consistent with the surrounding land uses – Emerald Lakes single-family development (west of site),
Brighton Gardens assisted living facility (north of site), County Library and other government services
(south of site), and residential development across Airport-Pulling Road (Lakeside and the future
development of the Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict).
Staff Summarization of the Data Submitted in Support of the GMPA Request
The GMPA application package includes the narrative (dated August 9, 2013) in response to staff's
request for data and analysis, Exhibit Q "Commercial Properties," and Exhibit R, a Bergstrom Center
report titled Survey of Emerging Market Conditions, to support their requested amendment.
The commercial support documentation submitted with this GMP amendment petition does not describe
a "market area," but instead consists of a listing of vacant commercial lands within a 3-mile radial
distance from the subject site that would potentially accommodate stand-alone or "pad ready"
commercial development, similar to what is being proposed by the subject Growth Management Plan
Amendment. The table on page 11 is a summary of those commercial lands that may be suitable for
national retailers (see Exhibit "S" of the GMPA submittal for retailer listing) potentially looking to enter the
Collier County commercial market.
- 10-
Packet Page -56-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
Undeveloped properties within 2-miles Undeveloped properties within 3-miles
Zoning Location Acreage Zoning Location Acreage
CPUD Pine Air Lakes 1.09 CPUD Creekside 1.33
CPUD Pine Air Lakes 8.89 CPUD Creekside 1.61
CPUD Pine Air Lakes 4.68 CPUD Creekside 2.04
CPUD Pine Air Lakes 11.36 CPUD Creekside 21.94
CPUD Cambridge Sq. 10.56 CPUD Gasper Station 12.07
MPUD Bradford Sq. 9.04 CPUD Clesen 4.19 _
PUD P. Ridge Commons 3.94 CPUD Pine View 5.65
MPUD Malibu Lakes 1.50
PUD P.R. Corners 4.22
PUD Angileri 2.24
PUD Ragge 3.60
PUD Naples Gateway 1.85
PUD P.R. Center West 4.15
C-4 Naples Twin Lakes 1.32
49.56 acres or 67.71 ac. or the
the equivalent of equivalent of
TOTAL 371,700 sq.ft. TOTAL 507,825 sq.ft.
(assuming 7,500 ` (assuming 7,500
sq. ft./ac.) sq. ft./ac.)
Note: This listing does not include stand-alone properties within the 3-mile radius of the subject site that are built,
but vacant (such as available building space in Galleria located in the northwest quadrant of Vanderbilt Beach
Rd./Airport Rd., and in Pine Air Lakes PUD/DRI); nor does the listing include commercial lands that have the
potential to be redeveloped with stand-alone commercial uses, e.g. acreage within the Activity Centers.
The applicant's "Commercial Properties" listing indicates that there is approximately 49.56 acres of
vacant commercial land with the potential for up to 371,000 square feet of stand-alone commercial
development within 2-miles of the subject site, and another 67.71 acres of vacant commercial land with
the potential for up to 507,825 square feet for stand-alone commercial development within 3-miles of the
subject site. The total acreage and potential square feet for stand-alone commercial development is
117.27 acres and 879,525 square feet, respectively. This potential developable square feet, combined
with the projected commercial square feet within the Activity Centers and commercial subdistricts,
provides ample commercial opportunities proximate to the surrounding residential areas for all
commercial categories in both stand-alone and shopping center configurations.
The Bergstrom Center Report generally describes the outlook on the residential and commercial markets
within the southwest coast of Florida as positive and further describes that these markets are trending
upwards. However, this information is not specific to the Naples' area market or the subject site.
Information from local sources, such as the Naples Area Board of Realtors, confirm that residential
inventory in the Naples area is decreasing while demand is strong, and interest in multi-family
(apartments) is increasing. Additionally, office and retail rents are on the rise due to vacant inventory
slowly being absorbed. However, demand for new commercial development will continue to be slow,
except for the occasional end-user. Finally, all market sectors appear to be improving as the health of
the local economy improves.
- 11 -
Packet Page-57-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
Environmental Impacts:
The subject property was previously cleared and used for row crops in 1975, according to an aerial on —
the Property Appraiser's website. As a result, the property qualifies for an agricultural clearing permit
exemption pursuant to Section 10.02.06 D.1.f. of the Land Development Code. Native vegetation
present on-site would not be required to be retained. Given the location and present condition of the
property, listed species would not likely occur on site. Base on these findings, the subject proposal was
found to be consistent with the applicable provision of the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element.
Historical and Archaeological Impacts:
Historic, archaeological or other cultural resources have not been identified as being present on the
subject property, based on a review of the Florida Master Site File by the Division of Historical Resources
of the Florida Department of State. The Master Site File is the State of Florida's official inventory of
historical and cultural resources. The project will be subject to the accidental discovery of archaeological
or historical sites, as required by Policy 11.1.3. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
and Section 2.03.07 E of the Land Development Code.
Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Analysis and Impact:
A Traffic Impact Statement, dated July 12, 2013, was prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions and
submitted with this petition.
Transportation Planners with the County's Transportation Planning Section reviewed the impact analysis
and provided the following comments: The analysis provides a comparison between the existing
development allowed within the approved Subdistrict and the proposed land uses allowed by the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Based on the analysis, staff determined that there is the possibility for
an increase in total net new trips of 58. Directionally distributed there would be approximately 17
additional trips in any given direction, which would have an insignificant impact on the adjacent roadway
network. As a result, there are no anticipated adverse impacts to the existing level of service on Airport
Road or Orange Blossom Drive expected to occur with the approval of this Plan amendment.
It should be noted that project impacts will be analyzed again for consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan at the time of request for zoning change, and concurrency and operational impacts will be evaluated
at the time of request for local development orders (SDP, Plat, etc.).
Public Facilities Impacts:
The petitioner prepared Public Facilities calculations, which were submitted with this petition.
In summary, the proposed project (based on the land uses identified below) results in a reduction of
impacts on certain Category A public facilities (potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage, and solid waste),
while potentially resulting in an increase in vehicle trips on adjacent roadways (refer to TIS and
transportation summary above).
Existing Subdistrict Proposed Subdistrict
Land Use Water/Sewer Solid Waste Land Use Water/Sewer Solid Waste
(Total GPD) (Total lbs.) (Total GPD) (Total lbs.)
Neighborhood Neighborhood
Shopping Center 7,053 430,233 Shopping Center 12,275 779,275
(70,530 sq. ft.) (122,750 sq. ft.)
Restaurant Restaurant
(150 seats) 6,000 Not provided (150 seats) 6,000 Not provided
Office—Low Rise Office—Low Rise
(46,113 sq.ft.) 6,917 170,618 (15,000 sq. ft.) 2,250 74,000
- 12-
Packet Page -58-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
Office—Medical Office—Medical
(46,112 sq. ft.) 11,210 188,137 (20,000 sq. ft.) 5,015 61,200
Residential
(326 DUs) 97,800 1,349,314
Total 128,980 2,138,302 Total 25,540 914,475
OR
Residential
(326 DUs) 97,800 1,349,314
Total 97,800 1,349,314
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS:
The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by Land Development Code Section 10.03.05 F
was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on July 30, 2013, in the Sugden Room of the North County
Library Headquarters, located at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive. Approximately 21 persons other than the
applicant's team and County staff attended the NIM, and heard the following information:
Tim Hancock, the applicant's agent, provided a full description of the proposed development to the group
gathered, including discussion about the maximum residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre and
the commercial cap of 7,500 sq. ft. per acre. Mr. Hancock described the differences between the
existing Growth Management Plan Subdistrict and the proposed Subdistrict.
The public speakers' questions are noted in italicized text, followed by the agent's [Tim Hancock]
responses in bold text.
Question#1. How many stories will the building be?
Two stories are being proposed from the currently approved three stories, however that change is
not part of the growth management plan amendment and will occur during the zoning process.
Question #2. How far will the setback be from Airport Pulling Road? Toys R Us was built so close to
Airport Pulling Road and had to provide plants and trees to soften the look.
The growth management plan does not deal with setback requirements and this will be addressed
during the zoning process. He explained that the minimum setback requirement is 25 feet and
current architectural standards and the land development code would apply to this project.
Question #3. What will the traffic impact be on Orange Blossom and Airport Pulling Road? Collier County
Transportation issued a traffic study and our property at the Naples Italian American Club was required to
expand the left turn lane.
The uses being proposed are equal to or less intense than what is currently approved. Tim
explained that the Naples Italian America Club could contact him after the meeting or the County
Transportation department to discuss questions regarding their development contribution
agreement.
Question #4. If the proposed changes are approved will there only be commercial or could there also be
residential?
It is possible for both residential and commercial but they would have to be on separate parcels
and there is the possibility for 100% residential.
Question#5. Would a big box store be allowed?
There is no size limitation but that larger stores like Home Depot or Target are nearly impossible on
a site of this size and configuration. Tim pointed out that the majority of big box stores prefer to be
at a signalized major intersection which this property will not have.
Question #6. We have 15-20 houses in the back of Emerald Lakes, how far are they going back with this
property. How much room are they going to leave for the people back there? They could end up with
dumpsters or big lights at the back of their houses.
- 13-
Packet Page-59-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
The current zoning for this property requires a 100 foot setback and that no one can be closer than
100 feet to the rear property line. The setback requirement will be determined at the time of zoning
and there is no intention of putting the building closer than 100 feet of the property line. In
reference to the second part of the question, the PUD does not currently limit the location of
dumpsters and will be further addressed during the zoning process. The lighting requirements will
also be addressed during the zoning process. The growth management plan amendment does not
address those requirements. The next neighborhood information meeting being held for the zoning
process will address those items and will be held approximately around November to December of
this year.
Question#7. Do you have commercial buildings committed to the project?
There are a couple of prospects but there are currently no letters of intent or commitments.
Question#8. Do you have any idea what the square footage will be of the individual residential units?
It is not the intent to build residential units but if maximum density were built the approximate
square footage would be 1,000 -1,200 s.f.
Question#9. You say maximum commercial is going to be a C-3?
Yes, the proposed land uses are consistent with C-1 thru C-3 zoning.
Tim further explained that there are 5 commercial zoned categories, C-1 being the least intensive
and C-5 being almost industrial. C-3 is intermediate and allows for retail and office such as
restaurants and banks, and C-4 is more typical of a shopping center.
Question #10. Those three arrows that are there, those are the access and whatever that other word is?
The only reason Lakeside is concerned about this is that this is our only way out, we only have one
entrance, one exit, most other places have at least two and have tried to get a traffic light in the past.
Those are consistent with what is currently approved and explained the location of the main access
points. Tim agreed that a traffic light would be preferred and explained that because the access is
divided the projects turning movements would not affect Lakeside's left in turning movements nor
cause any additional back up or make it unsafe. A traffic signal at the entrance however, is very --
unlikely. Tim stated that at the time of zoning they will propose an interconnection to the library and
having this interconnection could keep people going to the library off the intersection. Due to
security reasons interconnection to the assisted living facility are not allowed.
Question #11. I live right on Milpond Circle across the street from the Buckley property, when you say 25
feet do you mean from the street?
Clarified the 25 feet he was referring to is the setback from Airport Pulling Road could be as close
to as 25 feet. The total distance from homes to buildings across the lake would be approximately
200 feet and this will be clearly identified during the zoning process. [Tim again reviewed the
Exhibits and the proposed Development Plan.]
Question#12. That set back is from the right of way not the edge of the road.
That is correct,from the edge of the right of way,the setback is another 25 feet beyond that.
Question#13. If the master plan is successful when do you intend the start of construction?
The growth management plan process would need to be completed along with the zoning and
platting of the property. Once the property has been platted construction of the infrastructure,
water, sewer and internal roadways could commence with the earliest being the first or second
quarter of next year. The building would commence at best, in approximately a year to 18 months.
Question #14. You can't really start anything without commitment from the people moving in there,
whether commercial or residential, can you?
The intent is to put the infrastructure in allowing the property to be "developer ready" as soon as
possible.
- 14-
Packet Page-60-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
Question #15. I do not have a question but you eloquently said at the last meeting "something is going to
be built here" and what you are building there and are proposing to build there is the least offensive to
everybody....is that not correct?
Yes, ideally, we all want to live next to a park, but what is being proposed is less intensive than
what is currently approved. Tim again referred to exhibits showing the currently approved
development and what could be built vs.the proposed development.
Question#16. Will the parking be facing Airport Pulling Road?
The development has not reached the point of the parking design but generally speaking, the
parking will surround the building. Because of the 100 foot setback there will be some parking in
the rear but most commercial businesses want to have some parking between the road and their
business to show activity and livelihood.
Question#17. Will the fagade of the building be facing Airport Pulling Road?
The design intent is to have access from the rear of the property and the building facade to
primarily face Airport Pulling Road and explained again that this would be further discussed during
the zoning process.
Question#18. The architectural ordinance states that the nice face of the building has to face the road.
Correct and because Airport Pulling Road is a collector or arterial road, the building has to meet
architectural standards along Airport Pulling Road. Tim further explained these are considered
outparcels with other sides being secondary facades. All four facades of the building will have a
degree of architecture but the primary façade has to be the one facing Airport Pulling Road.
The agent encouraged representatives from the public to contact him with any additional questions or
concerns. The meeting was completed by 6:15 p.m.
[Synopsis prepared by T. Hamlin, Senior Project Manager with Davidson Engineenng,
with edits provided by M. Mosca,AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section]
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
The following are findings and conclusions as a result of the review and evaluation of this GMPA request:
• The subject property was originally approved for mixed use development only — not stand-alone
commercial and residential development. The approved density of up to 15 dwelling units per
acre was approved in order to incentivize the development of a traditional residential over
commercial mixed use project. Additionally, the square feet caps placed on office (92,225 sq.ft.)
and retail (70,525 sq.ft.) development along with the stringent development standards approved
for the Subdistrict further ensured the development of a mixed use, pedestrian scale project with
low intensity commercial uses.
• Based on the total existing and potential commercial development within a 3-mile radius of the
subject site, there is no additional need for the proposed commercial uses contemplated by this
amendment to serve the surrounding residential areas. In addition to commercial opportunities
within the Activity Centers, there are over 117 acres of vacant, documented commercial lands
available for the stand-alone/pad ready commercial uses proposed. Further, existing commercial
acreage is adequate to meet the demand for all types of commercial development, including
those proposed by the subject amendment.
• The petition's data and analysis attempts to substantiate the need for stand-alone or "pad ready"
development for potential national retailers wanting to enter the Collier County commercial
market, but fails to do so.
- 15-
Packet Page-61-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
• Any expansion of commercial development should be driven by the policies and provisions of the —
Future Land Use Element, not by speculative development attempting to meet a perceived
demand.
• Local indicators suggest that new commercial development will continue to be slow within the
County, except for the occasional end-user.
• Local indicators suggest that residential inventory is decreasing while demand is strong, and
interest in multi-family (apartments) is increasing.
• As a result of this amendment, there are no significant impacts to public facilities, as defined in
the Capital Improvement Element, with respect to Transportation, Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer,
Stormwater Drainage and Solid Waste facilities.
Staff finds that the data and analysis for the subject Growth Management Plan amendment does not
support the proposed changes to eliminate the mixed use development requirement within the Subdistrict
and replace it with a high density residential option and/or big-box and/or stand-alone commercial and/or
strip-style commercial development.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This Staff Report has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient. /HFAC)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP-2012-2, as —
submitted, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.
However, staff would recommend transmittal of either of the following two alternatives:
ALTERNATIVE 1: MIXED USE
12. Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict
The intent of this Subdistrict, which comprises approximately 21.7 acres, is to provide for a mixed-use
development consisting of residential uses and limited small-scale retail, office and personal service
uses, built at a pedestrian scale and with pedestrian orientation. The allowable commercial uses are
intended to serve existing and future residential development in the immediate area thereby reducing
existing trip lengths for small-scale commercial services. The development of this Subdistrict will be
governed by the following criteria:
a. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD.
b. Residential uses are allowed at a density of 10 dwelling units per acre, calculated based upon the
entire Subdistrict acreage, yielding a maximum of 217 dwelling units.
c. Commercial uses are limited to those permitted and conditional uses allowed in the C-1, C-2 and C-3
Zoning Districts, except as further restricted herein.
d. Commercial uses shall be capped at a maximum of 162,750 square feet of gross floor area.
e. Individual commercial users shall not exceed a maximum gross floor area of 15,000 square feet.
f. Drive-through establishments shall be limited to a maximum of two, and no such establishment shall
have more than three drive-through lanes. All drive-through lanes shall be architecturally integrated
into the main building.
g. Gasoline service stations, convenience stores, and fast food restaurants are prohibited.
- 16-
Packet Page -62-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
h. A residential component equal to at least 25% of the allowable maximum density (i.e. 54 dwelling
units) must be constructed before completion of an aggregate total of 40,000 square feet of retail,
office or personal service uses.
i. Residential uses may be in stand-alone buildings or may be integrated into mixed use buildings with
commercial uses. Integration of residential and office, retail or personal service uses in the same
building is encouraged.
j. The Subdistrict shall be developed with a common theme for architecture, signage, lighting and
landscaping.
k. All buildings shall be connected with pedestrian pathways.
I. Pedestrian connections are encouraged to all perimeter properties.
ALTERNATIVE 2: RESIDENTIAL/COMMUNITY FACILITY
12. Buckley Subdistrict
The intent of this Subdistrict, which comprises approximately 21.7 acres, is to allow for medium density
residential development and the non-residential uses as generally allowed in the Urban designation. The
development of this Subdistrict will be governed by the following criteria:
a. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD.
b. The base density allowed is seven (7) dwelling units per acre, by right, calculated based upon the
entire Subdistrict acreage, yielding a maximum of 152 dwelling units.
c. Other than the base density, the Density Rating System shall be applicable.
d. All residential unit types are allowed except mobile homes.
e. Non-residential uses are allowed as generally provided for in the Urban designation, e.g.
community facilities, essential services, parks, recreation and open space, etc.
f. Pedestrian connections are encouraged to all perimeter properties.
However, IF the CCPC should determine that this petition, as submitted, provides appropriate data and
analysis that warrant a recommendation to approve for transmittal, staff recommends minor modifications
to the proposed Subdistrict language as shown below. (Note: single underline text is added, and single
ctrike through text is deleted, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, and double s
t4r4skogli text is deleted, as proposed by staff.)
• In the intent (first) paragraph, insert text (Commercial uses for the purpose of this section are
limited to those permitted and conditional uses allowed in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts
except as noted below.)
• In existing paragraph g., insert text (No more than -°: e -- - __ __ - __ -e- e-
e- - -e - -e - - -- - 50% (up to 81,375 so. ft.1 of the commercial square footage may
be constructed as multi-tenant buildings.)
• Re-letter paragraphs as necessary to correlate with paragraph deletions.
- 17-
Packet Page -63-
6/10/2014 9.A.
CP-2013-3, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Agenda Item
PREPARED BY: �.---U. , r �,-�-1 DATE: e `3
ele R. Mosca,A1CP,�rincipal'Planner
Comprehensive/Panning Section
Planning and Zoning Department
REVIEWED BY: -4- , --Id)- "" DATE: `�
David Weeks,AICP, GMP Manager
Comprehensive Planning Section
Planning and Zoning Department
pia - .---7 t
REVIEWED BY: ! '` '' ""�_—__` DATE: 9 _ '
Michael Bosi, AICP, Director
Planning and Zoning Department
Growth Management Division
APPROVED BY: .F' ' ,,- ----- DATE:
c salanci , mis r
----Growth Management Division
PETITION NO. CP-2013-3
NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the November 12, 2013 BCC Meeting.
- 18-
Packet Page-64-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Comprehensive Planning
Memorandum
April 12,2013
Sent Via E-Mail
Mr.R. Bruce Anderson, Esq.
Roetzel and Andress Law Firm
850 Park Shore Drive
Naples, FL 34103
and
Mr.Tim Hancock
Davidson Engineering, Inc.
3530 Kraft Road,Suite 301
Naples,FL 34105
RE Sufficiency Review of Growth Management Plan Amendment Petition PL20120002909/CP-
2013-3, a Growth Management Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element(Buckley Mixed
Use Subdistrict) of the Growth Management Plan to allow for the removal of the physically
integrated residential/commercial component, removal of certain development standards, and
the addition of up to 3 new drive-through uses.
Dear Mr.Anderson and Mr. Hancock:
Pursuant to Paragraph B.2. of Resolution #12-234, this letter is to inform you that the referenced
application is not sufficient. Below is the list of deficiencies that need to be
corrected/addressed.
APPLICATION AND EXHIBITS:
Each deficiency below corresponds to the application numbers and letters.
Generally Revise all text/exhibits/maps to include page numbers
I.A. Provide disclosure of interest and authorization documentation for the McGuire
Development Company
II.D. Provide disclosure of interest and authorization documentation for Celtic Capital
1I.D. Provide documentation that authorizes F.James McGuire to act on behalf of the
Airport Pulling Orange Blossom, LLC
III.H. Revise to read,"Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict)"
V.A.1 Revise to read, "Please see Exhibit "D" (Location Map) and Exhibit "F" (Zoning
Map)"
Q
Packet Page -65-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Sufficiency/Substantive Adoption Memorandum
CP-2013-3
Page 2 of 4
V.A.3 Revise to read, "Please see Exhibit "F" (Zoning Map) and Item III.G. of this l`
application"
V.C.2 Insert reference to Exhibit"H" (Historical and Archaeological Probability)
V.D.4 The proposed change in project scale (from a pedestrian oriented -work, five,
play-mixed use development) may potentially increase intensify on the site. As
a result, provide a quantitative analysis comparing the existing Subdistrict build-
out scenario to the proposed build-out scenarios (commercial only project and
commercial w/proposed residential unit reduction)
V.EI.c Revise Exhibit reference to read, "See Exhibit "N" for the Traffic Impact
Statement"
V.E.1.d Drainage:Revise narrative to include level of service standard
V.E.1.e Solid Waste: Include calculations for existing and proposed conditions (cy/yr) and
document proposed change.
V.E.1.f Parks:Community and Regional-Provide calculations for existing conditions (326
residential) and proposed conditions (15 residential), and document proposed
change.
V.E3 Schools,Sheriff, Fire Protection and EMS Services
• Schools: Provide public school locations/addresses intended to serve project
- elementary, middle and high - provide calculations (based on student
generation rates) for existing conditions (326 residential) and proposed
conditions (15 residential),and document proposed change.
• Sheriff Services: Provide substation location/address intended to serve project,
provide calculations for existing conditions and proposed conditions, and
document proposed change.
• Fire Protection and EMS Services: Provide facility location/address intended to
serve project,and provide applicable calculations for proposed conditions.
V.F.3 Insert "N/A" and delete reference to "Airport Pulling Rd." as the Traffic
Congestion Boundary was eliminated with the adoption of the recent EAR-based
amendments to the Future Land Use Element/map
Exhibit C Subdistrict Texf
Please note that text modifications will be proposed by staff as part of the
substantive review of the petition
Exhibit I Proximity to Public Services Map: Revise map & map legend to differentiate
between public and private schools, and revise map/legend to reflect correct
locations of fire,sheriff and EMS facilities (e.g. Pine Ridge, east of Goodlette Rd.is
a fire station, not sheriff facility)
•
2
G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2013 Cycles&
Small Scale Petriions\2013 Cycle I-February\CP-2013-3,Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict\Sufficiency
Reviews\PL20120002909 CP-20133,Sufficiency Letter.docx
410
Packet Page-66-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Sufficiency/Substantive Adoption Memorandum
CP-2013-3
Page 3of4
•
Exhibit 0 Public Facilities
•
•
• Potable Water Include calculations for existing conditions (70,525 sf.shopping
center, 46,113 sf. medical-dental office, 46,112 general office bldg. and 326
residential-gpd) and document proposed change.
• Sanitary Sewer. Include calculations for existing conditions (70,525 sf.shopping
center, 46,113 sf. medical-dental office, 46,112 sf. general office bldg. and
326 residential-gpd) and document proposed change.
• Schools: Provide public school locations/addresses intended to serve project
- elementary, middle and high - provide calculations (based on student
generation rates) for existing conditions (326 residential) and proposed
conditions (15 residential), and document proposed change.
Data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use:
The existing Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict was approved to be developed as a
pedestrian-friendly, small scale, mixed use development. The development
criteria and mix of land uses established within the Subdistrict were specific to
achieving the goal of creating a pedestrian oriented,live/work/play community.
The proposed amendment changes the original intent, character and
design/scale of the approved project.As a result, the following data and analysis
should be provided to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed
request.
• Explain and document how the site is or is not viable as a residential only
project
• Explain and document how the site is or is not viable for community facility
uses and other uses generally allowed in the Urban Mixed Use designation
• Provide a market study to justify a commercial only development (since the
proposed amendment does not require mixed use development and
changes the intent,scale,dev.criteria, etc.)
Additional Staff Comments
Stephen Lenberaer, Senior Environmental Specialist, Surface Water and Environmental
Planning:
According to the 1975 aerial on the Property Appraisers website, the subject property
was entirely cleared and in agricultural use (row crops) in 1975. The property would
therefore qualify for,an exemption for agricultural clearing permit pursuant to 10.02.06
D.1.f LDC. Therefore no native vegetation, if present, would be required to be retained
on-site. The property was later converted to a plant nursery. Given the location and
present condition of the subject property,listed species are not likely to occur on site.
The letter received from the Florida Master Site File, lists no previously recorded historic
structures for the subject property. The project would be subject to the accidental
discovery of archaeological or historical sites, as required by Conservation and Coastal
Management Bement (CCME) Policy 11.1.3. The provision is also included in Subsection
2.03.07 E of the Land Development Code(LDC).
3
G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2013 Cycles&
Small Scale Petitions\2013 Cycle 1-February\CP-2013 ,Buckley Moved Use Subdistrict\Sufficiency
Reviews\PL20120002909_CP-2013-3,Sufficiency Letter.docx
•
Packet Page-67-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Sufficiency/Substantive Adoption Memorandum
CP-20 73-3
Page 4 of 4
Given the above, the proposed GMP amendment will have no affect on the Policies of
the Conservation and Coastal Management Dement and therefore can be found to be
consistent with the CCME.
John Podczerwinsky,Dev.Review Project Manager,Transportation Planning Section:
The Traffic Impact Study, dated 2/22/13,is sufficient for staff review.
Aaron Cromer,Principal Project Manager,Public Utilities Engineering:
Public Utilities staff has no issues with the application at this time.
The original application is available for pick-up. Once the petition has been modified to address
the above items, please re-submit the original plus four copies, all properly assembled, for a
second sufficiency/substantive review. Resolution #12-234 provides 30 days (May 13, 2013) for
you to respond to this letter with supplemental data.
Should you have questions and/or wish to schedule a meeting with staff to discuss the
sufficiency comments, please contact me at 239.252.2466 or via email at
michelemosca @collieraov.net.
Regards,
•ichele R��•sca,MCP
Oft
Principal anner
cc:
Michael Bosi, AICP,Interim Planning and Zoning Director
David Weeks,AICP,Growth Management Plan Manager,Comprehensive Planning Section
CP-2013-3 File
4
G:\IDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2013 Cycles&
Small Scale Petitions\2013 Cycle 1-February\CP-2013-3,Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict\Sufficiency
Reviews\PL20120002909_CP-2013-3,Sufficiency Letter.docx
410
Packet Page-68-
6/10/2014 9.A.
. Co1��er Ca1•s.H.-t
'4.`1
Comprehensive Planning
Memorandum
July 22,2013 Sent Via E-Mail
Mr.R. Bruce Anderson, Esq.
Roetzel and Andress Law Firm
850 Park Shore Drive
Naples, FL 34103
and
Mr.Tim Hancock
Davidson Engineering,Inc.
3530 Kraft Road,Suite 301
Naples, FL 34105
RE: Substantive Review of Growth Management Plan Amendment Petition
PL20120002909/CP-2013-3, a Growth Management Plan amendment to the Future Land Use
411- Element (Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict) of the Growth Management Plan to eliminate the
physical integration of residential development within commercial buildings; establish a ratio of
15 residential units or 7,500 square feet of commercial activity for each acre of land in the
Subdistrict and prohibit the development of both uses on the same parcel; revise certain
development standards; limit multi-tenant commercial buildings to no more than 50 percent of
the built square footage; eliminate the maximum size of the footprint for commercial buildings;
and, combine the existing office (4,250 sq. ft.) and retail (3,250 sq. ft.) square feet per acre-cap
to allow for up to 7,500 sq. ft. per acre or up to 162,750 sq. ft. of Commercial Professional
/General Office (C-1), Commercial Convenience (C-2) and Commercial Intermediate (C-3)
uses.
Dear Mr.Anderson and Mr. Hancock:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the following substantive items should be
addressed prior to staff's analysis and formulation of a recommendation fo the Collier County
Planning Commission.
DATA AND ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT THE SUITABILITY OF LAND FOR THE PROPOSED USE:
Staff's initial Sufficiency comments and data request are noted below in bold text, followed by
the agent's response in italicized text, and further followed by staff's second /follow-up request
for supporting data in bracketed [bold] text,which is based on the May 14, 2013 meeting with
both of you and the June 18, 2013 responses from Tim.
The existing Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict was approved for a pedestrian-friendly, small scale,
mixed use residential/commercial project. The development criteria and mix of land uses
•
Packet Page -69-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Substantive Transmittal Memorandum
CP-2013-3
Page 2 of 4
established within the Subdistrict were specific to achieving the goal of creating a pedestrian
oriented,live/work/play community.
The proposed amendment changes the original intent, character and design/scale of the
approved project. As a result,the following data and analysis should be provided to determine
the suitability of the site for the proposed request.
(1) Staffs request, dated April 12,2013: Explain and document how the site is or is not viable
as a residential only project.
Applicant's response, dated June 18, 2013: The property dimensions, having a significant
amount of frontage on Airport Road with a minimal amount of depth (500') make the site
difficult from a site development perspective to create a high qualify residential
development in this location. Conversely, the site dimensions lend themselves very well
to commercial development. A low density residential project in this area would be
unable to buffer itself adequately and would represent a substantial devaluation in
comparison to the existing approved level of development.
[Staffs follow-up request Provide justification for a high density residential only
development on the subject site, as the proposed Subdistrict allows for up to 15 dwelling
units per acre, and is not limited to low density residential as noted within the June 18,
2013 response.]
(2) Staff's request, dated April 12, 2013: Explain and document how the site is or is not viable
for community facility uses and other uses generally allowed in the Urban Mixed Use
designation
Applicant's response, dated June 18, 2013: While the site could physically
accommodate some Community Facility Uses such as a church or an assisted living
facility, both uses would represent a devaluation in comparison to the existing,approved
level of development. What distinguishes the proposed plan of development from the
existing one is the opportunity to respond to the current market conditions which
supports commercial land uses That cater to 'end users' as opposed to retail space in a
traditional shopping center. Requiring that the property be developed for only CF type
uses would significantly limit the potential development scenarios well beyond what is
already permitted on the site.
[Staffs follow-up request Quantify the "devaluation" resulting from the development of a
community facility use or other uses allowed in the Urban Mixed Use designation in
comparison to the existing approved uses within the Subdistrict, i.e. if the existing
Subdistrict uses, development standards, and commercial sq. ft. allocations are not
currently viable on the site, then quantify how a potentially viable CF use results in a
"devaluation."]
2
G:\CDESPL-1\COMPRE-1\COMPPL-1\COMPPL-1\2013CY-1\2013CY-1\CP-201-2\SUESTA-1\PL20120002909 CP-2013-
3,Sufficiency_Substantive Review Letter.docx
•
Packet Page-70-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Substantive Transmittal Memorandum
CP-2013-3
Page 3 of 4
(3) Staff's request, dated April 12, 2013: Provide a market study to justify a commercial only
development(since the proposed amendment does not require mixed use development
and changes the intent, scale, development criteria, etc.)
Applicant's response, dated June 18 2073: In lieu of a market study, the applicant has
chosen to limit the commercial development opportunities by requiring that nor more
than 50% of the developed commercial square footage be located within multi-tenant
space. Unlike traditional shopping centers which have current vacancies in the
immediate area, there is a lack of supply of 'pad ready'development for newcomers to
the commercial market. For example, within one mile of the subject property (please
see Exhibit `Q'Commercial and PUD properties map), there are no undeveloped parcels
available that would allow for stand-alone commercial development of C-3 or C-4
intensity. Few opportunities exist even extending out to three miles from the subject
property and no such undeveloped parcels exist currently along the Airport Road
corridor. Many national retailers look to either own or enter a long term land lease in
order to establish new locations. While ample opportunities may exist with respect to
potential sites for churches, ALF's and residential-only projects in the immediate area, a
lack of pad-ready commercial sites exists.
[Staff's follow-up request: (1) provide a market study to demonstrate the need for up to
an additional 92,225 sq. ft. of retail uses within the surrounding area (retail uses are
presently capped at 70,525 sq. ft. in the approved Subdistrict); (2) provide a listing of
national retailers with a commercial intensity of no greater than the County's C-2 and C-3
commercial zoning districts that are stand-alone developments; (3) substantiate the
assertion that there is a "lack of pad-ready commercial sites" and "lack of supply of`pad
ready' development for newcomers to the commercial market" i.e. if there's a lack of
supply then there's an associated demand figure - accordingly, please provide the
demand figure and supporting data specifically for these types of uses; and, (4) revise
Exhibit "Q" to include all vacant commercial sites within the 1 to 3-mile radial distance
from the subject site-for example, staff has identified that the Pine Ridge Commons site
was not included within the Exhibit.]
Additional Staff Comments:
John Podczerwinsky,Dev. Review Project Manager,Transportation Planning Section:
Review has not yet been completed as of the date of this letter.
Kris VanLenaen, Principal Project Manager, Public Utilities Engineering:
The subject property is located within the Collier County Water Sewer District. These
services are available in sufficient quantity and at a location to accommodate development.
Moreover,the change in the intensity of uses as allowable through this Growth Plan Amendment
does not create a significant impact to either the water or the wastewater system.
3
G:\CDESPL-1\COMPRE-1\COMPPL-1\COMPPL-1\2013CY-1\2013CY-1\CP-201-2\SUBSTA-1\PL20120002909 CP-2013-
3,Sufficiency Substantive Review Letter.docx
S
Packet Page-71-
6/10/2014 9.A.
Substantive Transmittal Memorandum
CP-2013-3
Page 4 of 4 --
After the petition has been modified to address the above items, please re-submit two copies,
all properly assembled, for a final substantive review. The resubmittal must be received no later
than August 9. 2013 in order to meet the current hearing schedule deadlines.
Should you have questions and/or wish to schedule a meeting to discuss staff comments, please
contact me at 239.252.2466 or via email at michelemosca @colfieroov.net.
Regards,
.-0- ele i o _ _
/ Princi.. Planner
c v.
Michael Bosi,AICP, Planning and Zoning Director
David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager,Comprehensive Planning Section
CP-2013-3 File
4
G,\CDESPL-1\COMPRE-1\COMPPL-1\COMPPL-1\2013CY-1\2013CY-1\CP-201-2\SUBSTA-1\PL20120002909_CP-2013-
3,Suffidency_Substantive Review Lefter.docx
•
Packet Page-72-
6/10/2014 9.A.
NAPLES DAILY NEWS K Wednesday,May 21,2014•19A
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
• Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing
on Tuesday,June 10,2014 in the Board of County Commissioners Chambers,Third Floor,Collier County
Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL.The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to
transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), the transmittal of an adoption
amendment of the 2013 Cycle 1 Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element and the Future Land
Use Map and Mao Series(FLUE/FLUM).The ORDINANCE title is as follows:
ORDINANCE 14-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COWER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO ALLOW THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL
FRINGE PORTION OF THE NAPLES RESERVE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
UTILIZE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM ANY LANDS DESIGNATED AS SENDING
LANDS WITHIN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT,AND PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL
OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1-1/2 MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND ONE MILE NORTH
OF US 41-IN SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 668 ACRES.[PL20130000139/CP-2013-1]
•
35 30
CRS 31 32
PROJECT
LOCATION
.Root
z
B 5
•
•
•
m.c \ ru�rz
11eFY11K MRS 6
I 4505 l,Y C1f♦3K RTAT[5
tai\
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan
Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Planning&Zoning Department,Comprehensive
Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr.,Naples,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday
• through Friday.Furthermore,materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Of•
fice,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 401,Naples,one week
prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Com-
prehensive Planning Section of the Planning&Zoning Department.Written comments filed with the Clerk
to the Board's Office prior to Tuesday,June 10,2014,will be read and considered at the public hearing.-
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissicaers
• with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,
and for such purpose he 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.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceed-.
ing,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier
County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL,
34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hear-
ing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA
TOM HENNING,CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK
By: Ann Jennejohn Deputy Clerk(SEAL)
No.231130877
Mavzi•z
Packet Page-73- ma
6/10/2014 9.A.
•
• 'NAPLES DAILY NEWS ( Wednesday,.May 21,2014 a 19A
•
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCES
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,June
10,2014 in the Board of County Commissioners Chambers,Third Floor,Collier'County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail
East,Naples,FL.The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M.
The purpose of the hearing Is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity(DEO),the transmittal of adoption amendments of the 2013 Cycle 1 Growth Management
•
Plan Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map Series(FLUE/FLUM),and to consider a recommendation
to adopt changes to the Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD).The.ORDINANCE titles are as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.14-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH.MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT TO REVISE THE BUCKLEY MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT
TO REMOVE THE OFFICE AND RETAIL CAPS AND ALLOW UP TO 7,500 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA
OF COMMERCIAL USES PER ACRE OR 11 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE,TO MAKE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONAL,TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE SAME PARCEL,TO UMIT
MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO NO MORE THAN 50%OF THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE,TO
REVISE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING THE CAP ON THE SIZE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS,AND PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET NORTH OF ORANGE
BLOSSOM DRIVE IN SECTION 2,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF
21.70 ACRES. [PL20120002909/CP-2013-3]
AND:
•
ORDINANCE NO.14-
. 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 ESTABUSHED 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 PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE BUCKLEY MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(MPUD)TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) WHICH WILL
CONTINUE TO BE KNOWN AS THE BUCKLEY PUD,TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 239 RESIDENTIAL UNITS,WITH NO
REQUIREMENT FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS AND UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 162,750 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS
FLOOR SPACE OF RETAIL,OFFICE AND SERVICES USES,INCLUDING PERMISSIBLE AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE
C-1,C-2 AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF
THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULUNG ROAD(CR 31)AND ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE IN SECTION 2,TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 21.7+/-ACRES;PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL
OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-05,THE FORMER BUCKLEY MPUD;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [(PUDZ-
A-PL20120002906]
PELICAN < BRA pals .
MARSH pp PELICAN -
tORI) o"i NABS -..
35 Mel)
'i $ 31
YMLONEENB 36 y NLWRRE 7.L
O PELICAN l LAKES T .
MARKER LIKE .
MElA4 VENETIAN W 8W=.
A•_- VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD I
. •I MNEYARDS
`°'A'' 3 m .- PROJECT `
AROE
'Neu=LOCATION
LIEAD ra ';TRUS S
•
LAMES r „E,�Ca"sN
2 SE ' oacNN
p„T E
' •
� " SIENA , .
rAa LANES
a
..
SLEEPY • u n e LO NAMEEW FIRST
BAPTIST NOLLOM
Bart W t� LONE CMIROI Y�R. - -
. OAK
KEYSTONE PLACE RLLLOw MARK
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments will be
made available for inspection at the Planning&Zoning Department,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Or.,
Naples,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday.Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite
401,Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the -
Comprehensive Planning Section of the Planning&Zoning Department Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's
Office orbit)Tuesday,June 10;2014,will be read and considered at the public hearing. . • . • .
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners with respect.to any
matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose'he 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.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,
at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the'Coltier County Facilities Management Department,
located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL,34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.
Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. —
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLUER COUNTY,FLORIDA
TOM HENNING,CHAIRMAN . ' -•
•DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK .•
By: Ann Jennejohn Deputy Clerk(SEAL) - -
•
No.402148051 Miry 21.2014 - •
Packet Page-74- • . ::,.: . .. .