FW Gateway Triangle ADA Submittal 1
IPM.Note
FW: Gateway Triangle ADA Submittal 1
FW:
KlatzkowJeff
AshtonHeidi
KlatzkowJeff
AshtonHeidi
EX
/O=COLLIER COUNTY GOV./OU=ITDOMAIN/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ASHTONH
Gateway Triangle ADA Submittal 1
EX
/O=COLLIER COUNTY GOV./OU=ITDOMAIN/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JEFFKLATZKOW
EX
/O=COLLIER COUNTY GOV./OU=ITDOMAIN/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JEFFKLATZKOW
EX
/O=COLLIER COUNTY GOV./OU=ITDOMAIN/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ASHTONH
Received: from bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net (10.10.164.254) by
bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net (10.10.164.254) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
id 15.0.1395.4 via Mailbox Transport; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:30:01 -0500
Received: from bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net (10.10.164.254) by
bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net (10.10.164.254) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:29:58 -0500
Received: from bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net ([fe80::44f7:22e1:72b3:7ccf]) by
bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net ([fe80::44f7:22e1:72b3:7ccf%12]) with mapi id
15.00.1395.000; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:29:58 -0500
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
From: AshtonHeidi <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>
To: KlatzkowJeff <Jeff.Klatzkow@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: FW: Gateway Triangle ADA Submittal 1
Thread-Topic: Gateway Triangle ADA Submittal 1
Thread-Index: AdTEqsUyGKVzmELAS4GE6z9bvojaYwKBnpyQ
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:29:58 -0500
Message-ID: <eb373ee7596d44109cf22ecd5083d8a5@bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net>
References: <054e33fc5d1648ca8eae1503b121da8e@bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net>
In-Reply-To: <054e33fc5d1648ca8eae1503b121da8e@bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <eb373ee7596d44109cf22ecd5083d8a5@bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-MessageDirectionality: Originating
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthMechanism: 04
X-Originating-IP: [10.4.1.20]
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Network-Message-Id: 1f274f5c-7999-437e-e3ed-08d69cc86eff
Return-Path: Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AVStamp-Enterprise: 1.0
AshtonHeidi
EX
/O=COLLIER COUNTY GOV./OU=ITDOMAIN/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ASHTONH
KlatzkowJeff
Gateway Triangle ADA Submittal 1
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Office of the Collier County Attorney
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 301
Naples, FL 34104
(239) 252-8400
From: AshtonHeidi
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:19 PM
To: AshtonHeidi <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: Gateway Triangle ADA Submittal 1
See Attached
This email was sent from Collier County, FL - 2018.4 SP8.
________________________________
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity.
Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
<eb373ee7596d44109cf22ecd5083d8a5@bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net>
<054e33fc5d1648ca8eae1503b121da8e@bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net>
<054e33fc5d1648ca8eae1503b121da8e@bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net>
StrainMark
Jeff.Klatzkow@colliercountyfl.gov
EX
/O=COLLIER COUNTY GOV./OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MARKSTRAIN
EX
/O=COLLIER COUNTY GOV./OU=ITDOMAIN/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ASHTONH
AshtonHeidi
AshtonHeidi
JeffKlatzkow
JeffKlatzkow
StrainMark
AshtonHeidi
AshtonHeidi
AshtonHeidi
Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov
Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov
Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov
Jeff.Klatzkow@colliercountyfl.gov
Jeff.Klatzkow@colliercountyfl.gov
sip:heidiashton@colliergov.net
MarkStrain@colliergov.net
00000002/o=Collier County Gov./ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=markstrain
en-US
35E41FA7-8CD2-4B20-8E41-7D69B4758E5A
a6e78e59-a578-42bd-a273-aaeb203d16bb
41948
Gateway/Triangle - ADA-PL20190000305 (administrative appeal)
19-CPS-01863
1462621
Internal
04
bccexcp01.bcc.colliergov.net
IPM.Note
[10.4.1.20]
BT=0;II=[CID=9873a518-c042-814b-84eb-3f5bbe88da63;IDXHEAD=D4C4AAC532;IDXCOUNT=2];SBMID=7;SBT=11;THA=3526077800;FIXUP=22.2991;Version=Version 15.0 (Build 1395.0), Stage=H7
KlatzkowJeff
EX
/o=Collier County Gov./ou=ITDOMAIN/cn=Recipients/cn=JeffKlatzkow
Jeff.Klatzkow@colliercountyfl.gov
JeffKlatzkow
JeffKlatzkow
KlatzkowJeff
sip:jeffklatzkow@colliergov.net
KlatzkowJeff
02 - Basis of Appeal - Prepared.pdf
1 BASIS OF APPEAL This is an appeal of a staff determination that there is a Floor Area Ratio (“F.A.R.”) applicable to a proposed hotel to be constructed to be constructed on an approximately
two (2) acre parcel located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (“Overlay”). The denial letter being appealed is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:
The Overlay was established to encourage redevelopment of property within the Overlay. The purpose of the Overlay was to incentivize development opportunities and allow greater densities
and intensities than allowed on the properties in the Overlay prior to the adoption of the Overlay. Prior to adoption of the Overlay, hotel uses were not permitted on C-4 property
within the Overlay that was not within an activity center. The subject property is zoned C-4 and is not within an activity center. Therefore, a hotel use is not a permitted use under
the existing zoning for the property. It is through the establishment of the Overlay that the hotel use became permitted on the subject property. The Overlay provides for the development
standards for all development within the Overlay. There is no need to look outside of the Overlay to determine development standards for hotel use in the Overly. Staff has never applied
the FAR standard to this property. In fact, Staff approved multiple Site Development Plans (SDP’s) for a hotel without ever applying an FAR standard. It was not until a neighbor objected
to a revision to a previously approved SDP that Staff elected to apply the FAR standard. The application of the FAR standard is contrary to the stated intent that the Overlay which
was adopted to provide incentives to spur redevelopment. The FAR standard limits redevelopment of the property as a hotel because it artificially reduces the area eligible for hotel
rooms even though the site complies with all other development standards applicable to the Overlay including, but not limited to height, setbacks, lot coverage and parking. THE OVERLAY
WAS ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW GREATER INTENSITY & DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, the GTMUD-MXD, Mixed Use Projects (MUPs) and the, mini-triangle
catalyst site were established to foster redevelopment, incentivize development opportunities and allow greater densities and intensities. The GTMUD is intended to provide greater
intensity as supported by the GMP, LDC, and the Community Redevelopment Agency’s (“CRA’s”) scope of work associated with the mini-triangle catalyst site. a. GMP intent language: Policy
5.6.F. “Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses
and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between
properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been
adopted into the Collier County 2 Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: ….” See Attachment
“1”. b. LDC intent language: LDC Sec 2.03.07.N.4.a “The Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District consists of the following subdistricts: i. Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD). The purpose
and intent of this subdistrict is to provide for pedestrian-oriented commercial and mixed-use developments and higher density residential uses. Developments will reflect traditional
neighborhood design building patterns. Individual buildings are encouraged to be multi- story with uses mixed vertically, with street level commercial and upper level office and residential.
Included in this District is the "mini triangle" formed by US 41 on the South, Davis Boulevard on the North and Commercial Drive on the East, which is intended to serve as an entry
statement for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA and a gateway to the City of Naples. …” See Attachment “2”. c. Catalyst site intent: The attached Mini-Triangle Catalyst Project
document was provided by David Jackson (prior CRA Director) as guidance for work RWA conducted on the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, and the catalyst site plans developed
for the minitriangle and Kelly Lake properties. As stated in Attachment 3: “Mini-Triangle Catalyst Project: Intended as a higher density Mixed-Use Project, with focus on Hotel, Retail,
Restaurants and potential for condominium uses. Maximize buildout potential and utilize structured parking. CRA staff felt concepts included in the original Redevelopment Plan did
not provide sufficient density/footprint size. Potential to make the tip of the triangle (intersection of Davis and US 41) a strong focal point.” The subject property is located within
the Mini-Triangle Catalyst area. This request is to build a hotel. LACK OF A HOTEL F.A.R. WAS NOT AN OVERSIGHT a. Assuming that omission of the FAR in the GTMUD-MXD was an oversight
and that the C-4 Hotel FAR should apply is illogical, since this reasoning is inconsistent with the stated intents in the GMP and LDC. b. Assuming that when an overlay is silent
on a given standard, the County will revert back to the base zoning is inconsistent with common zoning practices and the evidence within those overlays. The Hotel and Motel use was
intentionally added to the overlay as part of a list of uses found in Table 2 of LDC Sec 2.03.07. Other uses within that table contain 3 “additional standards;” the Hotel and Motel
use does not. Should we then assume that all uses without additional standards are subject to oversights and that we can revert to base zoning or other code sections as we please?
The answer is clearly no. As evidence, the “Dwelling, Mobile Home” use contains the following additional standard “*If permitted by the underlying zoning,” No other use allowed in
the GTMUD contains this exception which demonstrates that the underlying zoning standards do not apply unless specifically stated. c. It is common practice to administer the LDC based
on the development standards setforth in an Overlay within the LDC. It cannot be assumed that the lack of an FAR was an oversight unless evidence supports that assessment. There is
no evidence that the County intended that an FAR apply to the hotel use being added to the permitted uses within the Overlay. Unlike group housing, which has a LDC section dedicated
to the development standards applicable to group housing, no such general development standard applies to hotels. Accordingly, there is no specific section in the LDC that adopts development
standards for hotels. In this case, it is the Overlay that permits a hotel to be developed on the property. It is the Overlay development standards that apply to development on the
property, not a portion of the C-4 zoning district standards that are not the basis for the hotel to be built in the first place. d. RWA developed the GTMUD and BMUD Overlays. At
that time, Patrick Vanasse led the RWA team that worked on the overlay. Mr. Vanasse clearly recalls that the team intentionally removed barriers to redevelopment and drafted the overlay
without a Hotel FAR in order to allow more intensity and to encourage hotel development within the mini-triangle area. The team intentionally allowed more intensity in the mixed use
subdistrict to foster redevelopment of the mini-triangle and make it attractive for a hotel and corporate offices to be built within the mini-triangle catalyst site. e. Not requiring
an FAR for the GTMUD district was intentional and is consistent with the GMP, and LDC Sections that outline the intent of the overlay, as well as the scope of work provided by the CRA.
Should a Hotel FAR have been desired, specificity would have been provided on how to calculate and administer this regulation. As staff knows, applying a Hotel FAR requirement to
a mixed-use project is very complicated. By the very nature of a project being horizontally or vertically integrated, it is difficult to discern what should be counted toward the hotel
use versus the rest of the commercial uses that have no FAR. CONSISTENCY WITH GMP As commonly accepted in the planning and zoning profession, the GMP supersedes the LDC. The GMP
clearly states that the intent of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay is to “allow more intense development” per Policy 5.6 F. Furthermore, it states, “ This overlay
allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities….” 4 If you apply the C-4 Hotel FAR to the overlay, then the intensity
for Hotel uses is not increased, and therefore, inconsistent with the GMP. The overlay’s intent is clearly to increase intensity; therefore, having no FAR limit within the overlay
is consistent with the stated intent. THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE OVERLAY SUPERSEDES C-4 BASE ZONING a. The notion of an overlay superseding base zoning is consistent with planning
and zoning best practices. Overlays in Collier County and other jurisdictions typically supersede or supplement existing restrictions, rights and/or privileges for a certain geographic
area governed by the subject overlay. It is common practice for CRAs to use overlays to encourage and stimulate redevelopment by allowing greater densities and intensities, thus allowing
greater development opportunity through more flexible development standards. b. GMP Policy 5.6.F.1 states that for Mixed Use Developments like Gateway Naples “a mix of residential
uses is permitted. For such development uses are limited to C1-through C3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use;
theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies.” The hotel use is not permitted on the property
under the C-4 zoning designation. It is the overlay that is allowing for the development of the hotel. As such, C-4 limitations identified under Section 4.02.1 do not apply. Hotel
uses within the Overlay district are therefore strictly regulated by Section 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development in the Overlay which intentionally does not contain an FAR limitation.
c. LDC Sec 4.02.1 (Attachment “4”) which provides a development standards table for various commercial zoning districts contains a row for Overlay Districts that states, “See table
of special design requirements applicable to overlay district.” This clause acknowledges that the overlays provide separate and more specific regulations, which as a result supersede
base zoning district standards and have primacy over base zoning design requirements. LDC Section 4.02.16 (Attachment “5”) contains the development standard for the Overlay. This Section
does not include the FAR now being imposed by Staff. d. LDC Sec 2.03.07 (Attachment “2”) pertaining to Overlay Districts makes it clear that while densities and uses can be established
according to the base zoning district or the overlay that “in either instance the GTMUD site development standards as provided for in section 4.02.16 shall apply.” Therefore, the BCC
specifically and intentionally determined that the development standards in Section 4.02.16 at the LDC apply to development in the Overlay. Had the BCC intended to establish a FAR
for hotels, it would have included such a requirement in Section 4.02.16 of the LDC. Section 4.02.16 of the LDC contains very detailed development standards for projects within the
Overlay. To somehow imply that you must look to the C-4 zoning standards to determine that a FAR applies is not supported by the actual detail in the LDC. 5 e. LDC Section 10.02.15
Requirements for Mixed Use Projects within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area states the following: “A. Mixed Use Project Approval Types. Owners of property located
in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area designated as Neighborhood Commercial (BMUD-NC), Waterfront (BMUD-W), and Mixed Use (GTMUD-MXD) Subdistricts may submit an application
for a Mixed Use Project (MUP). The MUP shall allow for a mixture of residential and commercial uses, as permitted under the Table of Uses for the appropriate subdistrict. Applications
for a MUP may be approved administratively or through a public hearing process as described in this section. A preapplication meeting is required for all MUP applications. 1. Administrative
Approval: a. MUPs may be approved administratively provided they meet the following conditions: i. The MUP complies with all site development standards as outlined in section
4.02.16 of the LDC; ii. The MUP only includes permitted uses as outlined by the Table of Uses for the subdistrict in which it is located; and iii. The MUP does not seek additional
density through the Bonus Density Pool provisions of LDC section 10.02.15 C. b. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for MUP administrative approval.
The application shall follow the applicable submittal requirements and procedures for site development plan submittal and review. …” It should be noted that Sec 10.02.15 makes it very
clear that Sec 4.02.16 applies to MUPs, not Sec. 4.02.01. Moreover, the clause states that MUPs can only include uses outlined in the Table of Uses for that subdistrict. That would
negate the ability to revert back to Sec 4.02.01 and apply the C-4 Hotel FAR. (see Attachment “6”) STAFF DETERMINED IN WRITING THAT THE FAR DOES NOT APPLY The attached email from
Chris Scott (Attachment “7”) dated June 6, 2018, states “The FAR requirements for hotels in a C-4 district would not apply to projects in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle, as the development
standards 4.02.16 would supersede the base zoning.” This determination is consistent with the findings detailed in this report. In addition, this property has received multiple SDP
review. As can be seen in Composite Attachment 8, the County at no time required the hotel to meet a FAR threshold. In fact, as can be seen in Attachment 9, 6 the FAR threshold not
being applied by Staff was exceeded when it approved the revise SDP to increase the number of hotel rooms to 48 from 12. CONCLUSION: The Overlay was established to encourage redevelopment
of property within the Overlay. The purpose of the Overlay was to incentivize development opportunities and allow greater densities and intensities than allowed on the properties in
the Overlay prior to the adoption of the Overlay. Prior to adoption of the Overlay, hotel uses were not permitted on C-4 property within the Overlay that was not within an activity
center. The subject property is zoned C-4 and is not within an activity center. Therefore, a hotel use is not a permitted use under the existing zoning for the property. It is through
the establishment of the Overlay that the hotel use became permitted on the subject property. The Overlay provides for the development standards for all development within the Overlay.
There is no need to look outside of the Overlay to determine development standards for hotel use in the Overly. Staff has never applied the FAR standard to this property. In fact,
Staff approved multiple Site Development Plans (SDP’s) for a hotel without ever applying an FAR standard. It was not until a neighbor objected to a revision to a previously approved
SDP that Staff elected to apply the FAR standard. The application of the FAR standard is contrary to the stated intent that the Overlay which was adopted to provide incentives to spur
redevelopment. The FAR standard limits redevelopment of the property as a hotel because it artificially reduces the area eligible for hotel rooms even though the site complies with
all other development standards applicable to the Overlay including, but not limited to height, setbacks, lot coverage and parking. ATTACHMENTS: 1. GMP Policy 5.6.F. Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Redevelopment Overlay 2. LDC Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts 3. Mini-Triangle Catalyst Project – scope of work from CRA 4. LDC Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards
for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts 5. LDC Section 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area 6. LDC Section 10.02.15 Requirements
for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area 7. Email from Chris Scott to Patrick Vanasse dates June 6, 2018 8. SDP Approval Letters 9. SDP Approving 48 Unit
Hotel
.pdf
02-Bas~1.pdf
02 - Basis of Appeal - Prepared.pdf
EnUs
Attachment 1.pdf
.pdf
Attach~1.pdf
Attachment 1.pdf
EnUs
Attachment 2.pdf
.pdf
Attach~1.pdf
Attachment 2.pdf
EnUs
01 - Appeal Application.pdf
.pdf
01-App~1.pdf
01 - Appeal Application.pdf
EnUs
Attachment 4.pdf
.pdf
Attach~1.pdf
Attachment 4.pdf
EnUs
Attachment 3.pdf
.pdf
Attach~1.pdf
Attachment 3.pdf
EnUs
Attachment 6.pdf
.pdf
Attach~1.pdf
Attachment 6.pdf
EnUs
Attachment 5.pdf
.pdf
Attach~1.pdf
Attachment 5.pdf
EnUs
Attachment 7.pdf
.pdf
Attach~1.pdf
Attachment 7.pdf
EnUs
Attachment 9.pdf
.pdf
Attach~1.pdf
Attachment 9.pdf
EnUs
Attachment 8, Composite.pdf
.pdf
Attach~1.pdf
Attachment 8, Composite.pdf
EnUs
Exhibit A.pdf
.pdf
Exhibi~1.pdf
Exhibit A.pdf
EnUs