Memorandum - London HEX Appeal PL20190000305
Gateway/Triangle(ADA)
Application Supplement
Background
The subject of this appeal is the property located at the triangle of Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East,
at the Gateway to Collier County from downtown Naples. The underlying zoning of the property is C-4.
The property is within the GTMUD-MXD and BMUD Overlay. The property is not within an activity
center.
The property owner intends to redevelop the site as a mixed-use project. The building (SDPI
PL20180002049)includes a hotel,in addition to retail,restaurant and residential uses. A pre-approval letter
was issued on August 1,2018, subject to payment of Road Impact Fees. Road Impact Fees in the amount
stipulated in the pre-approval letter were paid on October 10,2018. See Schedule 1.
On October 16,2018,the pre-approval was withdrawn on the unveiled finding that the building dimension
standards outlined under Section 4.02.01 in "Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base
Zoning District" apply. In response, on December 10, 2018, the petitioner requested the application be
denied in order to file this appeal. The denial letter was issued on January 1,2019.
A more detail chronology is enclosed. See Schedule 2.
Zoning
The underlying zoning of the property is general commercial district(C-4). C-4 permits hotels only if the
property is located within an activity center. See 2.03.03.D.1.a.71. If the property is not within an activity
center, then in order to develop a hotel, the property owner must obtain a conditional use permit. See
2.03.03.D.1.c.14.
In addition to the underlying zoning district, the property is located within the Gateway Triangle Mixed
Use Overlay — Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD — MX) and the Bayshore Mixed Use Overlay District
(BMUD). Hotels are permitted as a matter of right when a property is located within the GTMUD—MX
Overlay. See 2.03.07.N.4.iii.b(2). Moreover, since this is a mixed-use project, the uses, intensities and
densities must conform with the GTMUD—MX subdistrict. See 2.03.07.N.4.ii.c.
Relationship to Underlying Zoning
If there is any doubt over which dimension standards apply to a project developed in the GTMUD overlay
district,the Code unambiguously states:
"Property owners may establish uses,densities and intensities in accordance with the existing LDC
regulations of the underlying zoning classification, or may elect to develop/redevelop under the
provisions of the applicable GTMUD Subdistrict.In either instance,the GTMUD site development
standards as provided for in section 4.02.16 shall apply."See 2.03.07.N.3.b.
Site Development Standards
The standards for properties developed under the underlying zoning district are found in Land Development
Code Section 4.02.01. The standard at issue is the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The FAR requirement is
derived from Table 2, "Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts". In
pertinent part:
Table 2.Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts.
Maximum Minimum
Minimum Floor Area of Floor Area
Building Distance
Zoning District Buildings Ratio
Height Between
(square feet) (/o o )
(feet) Buildings
C-4 75 A 700 (ground floor)
Hotels .60
Destination resort .80
Overlay Districts See table of special design requirements applicable to overlay districts.
The FAR for a hotel developed under C-4 is.6. The maximum height of a hotel developed under C-4 is 75
feet. The table clearly provides that the standards required under the base zoning district do not apply to
Overlay District.
Instead, building dimension standards applicable to Overlay Districts are clearly established by the
dimensional requirements of each Overlay District.
The standards for properties developed under the Overlay Districts are set forth in the same Code Section
4. The maximum height for a hotel developed under the GTMUD-MXD Overlay is 56 feet, unless that
hotel is part of a mixed use project, in which case the maximum height is 112 feet'.
Table 7.Dimensional Requirements in the GTMUD-MXD
House Rowhouse Mixed- Civic &
1 2 Apartment Commercial
Use Institutional
Max. Building Height
(ft)4 42 42 42 56' 56' I 42
See 4.02.16.B.1.Table 7.
The difference in permitted height between a hotel developer under C-4 and a hotel developed under the
GTMUD-MXD is 19 feet. Thus,a hotel building developed in the GTMUD-MXD Overlay must have two
(2) fewer stories than a hotel developed under C-4 zoning. Accordingly, there is no FAR for a hotel
developed under the GTMUD-MXD Overlay.
If the county intended to apply more stringent standards above and beyond the height restraint, such as a
FAR, for a hotel use developed under the GTMUD subdistrict, it would have done so. In fact, there is a
long enumeration of additional standards for specific uses that"ensure compatibility between land uses and
building types and minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties." See 4.02.16.C. Hotels are not
included and are not subject to any additional standards beyond the standards defined by Table 7.
1 If the building is a mixed-use project in the mini-triangle area of the GTMUD-IvIXD,the maximum height is 112
feet. See 4.02.16.B.Table 7.Note 7.
Conclusion
The underlying zoning prohibits hotels unless the property is in an activity center or the property owner
obtains a conditional use permit. The property is not within an activity center and the property owner has
not obtained nor intends to obtain a condition use permit.
The proposed use of the property, a mixed-use building with a hotel component, is realizable only through
the GTMUD-MXD.
More importantly, for all developments in the GTMUD-MXD,the Land Development Code requires that
the building dimension standards in Section 4.02.16 govern.
The building dimension requirements in 4.02.16 do not contain nor require a FAR. More than one site plan
approval letter has been issued to the applicant on the same property under this analysis. The petitioner
insubstantially amended the already-approved site plan and satisfied the final condition of the current pre-
approval by payment of the road impact fee, in reliance on the Land Development Code and the county's
consistent interpretation that the GTMUD-MXD overlay dictates site plan requirements for the intended
uses. See Schedule 3.
Applying FAR to the hotel component of this project is not only an outright reversal of consistent county
policy and county representations, but is undeniably inconsistent with the plain language of the Land
Development Code. On these grounds,the October 16,2018 letter must be repealed.
Schedule 1
Collier County
Growth Management Division
1800 Horseshoe Drive N.
Naples,FL 34104
239-252-2400
RECEIPT OF PAYMENT
Receipt Number: 2018553029
Transaction Number: 2018-091777
Date Paid: 10/10/2018
Amount Due: $10,186.21
Payment Details: Payment Method Amount Paid Check Number
Check $10,186.21 001936
Amount Paid: $10,186.21
Change / Overage: $0.00
Contact: LONDON OF NAPI FS INC STE 105 STE 105
3050 NORTH HORSESHOE DR
NAPLES FL 34104
FEE DETAILS:
Fee Description Reference Number Original Amount GL Account
EtAi Paid
Road Commercial Impact Fee PL20110002293 ;10,186.21 $10,186.21 333-163653-324210-31333.1
Cashier Name: AlinaHarris
Batch Number: 7756
Entered By: fleishmanpaula
Schedule 2
1. August 2, 2017 (Trio SDPA 20170002293). County's line-item of county fees to applicant—no
fee for SDP/SDPA Non-residential Floor Area.
2. August 24, 2017 (Trio SDPA 20170002293). County's initial review. Comments limited to
building height, setbacks and parking space dimensions, pipe dimensions, transportation
methodology,and landscaping.
3. October 19, 2017 (Trio SDPA 20170002293). County's second review. Comments limited to
parking space dimensions, buffer requirements, infrastructure maintenance responsibility and
sidewalk details.
4. November 3,2017(Trio SDPA 20170002293). Applicant's response.
5. November 14, 2017 (Trio SDPA 20170002293). Issuance of Project Pre-Approval Letter and
Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy.
6. June 26, 2018 (Gateway SDPI20180002049). County's initial review. Comments limited to
transportation methodology,access,restaurant parking calculations,and floor area of the residential
units on floors 7 through 9.
7. July 23, 2018 (Gateway SDPI20180002049). County's second review. Comments limited to
access and sidewalks.
8. August 1,2018 (Gateway SDPI20180002049). Issuance of Project Pre-Approval Letter.
9. August 30,2018(Gateway SDPI20180002049). County's rescission of Pre-Approval Letter to re-
evaluate access.
10. October 10,2018(Gateway SDPI20180002049). Applicant's payment of road commercial impact
fee($10,186.21).
11. October 16,2018(Gateway SDPI20180002049). County's determination that the hotel portion of
the project is subject to FAR, as outlined in Table 2 of the "Building Dimension Standards for
Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts".
12. October 25, 2018(Trio SDPA 20170002293). Final Site Development Plan Approval(permit).
13. December 11, 2018 (Gateway SDPI20180002049). Applicant's response letter. Disagrees with
FAR requirement, as former SDP was approved without such requirement. Requests SDPI be
denied to move forward with appeal.
14. January 4, 2019(Gateway SDPI20180002049). County's denial letter.
Schedule 3
:7::7:-4.7:7.V7,77^-,:%""7-i7
( 1ThIN,A0) v
„„
lf,.,": '....% ( ,--.%_.:-.7........-....
_
a4rteri anal "../ WM:et 1 nasCRO:,,IN
IIIINC14 %311. 117,C3SSY
Itirf YOWL laurno IWO.. t=AV. , r 1 1
15Y3 lIVAI IWYWIYI SOL 1 "c.v..
''-' ".. • • ....4. 'NICI. ACA ,W
x I NI 3 0 IA a, . AVM1.1.V9 ,
...
! , , ! g i 5 :6811goi 1 04' - i• .
: : I i 1 .2;i 1 iti.ii! :to t.iiiip
, ..z 7r. re'' ;
--1 LI-I 11Z n i 1 li a, , .! 1 51-s s'0 icf10.
z i :-
i,
1119;11 140;1 q-4741/,51
(-) i 4•i3 5 '4 ;15 i !, 1'‘'.1 '.k. In 4-. z,013 ,.tEtgiili:
1: L.) ---- ' & gli 11 5 1 ,I3 - t I.E I, c r §i; ifiiitiIiriEzkiei; 'F Pitt,i
111T4,2U
i 6.4.
LLJ
L.)
11!gil1
1
l
< 1 :1;- 1,a!i
---- !;!..
U CT Cil LI)
i6‘a3 1.3 ik' Pe W; ilur il ! _ ,V,
I 9
CN LLJ 5 iii RA. !N . -... ._,
--J C-) C:) .., . ' R ( / tr4 'Ir
,
C',1 2 IF - ! z.vi „ 1 —
I ..,
Lr) - '
0
__.
Lu Cl- 411ii Y .t1 i:IA r i
'
1 ;
_ A
....- r-- ,
-...„ , Ln Lf/ 1A1= II p i
F-- (:) IIIIIII LU :2: 1 f .4 A 611T. 5 14a; ''": i fl t e 4i .: —:,
Lel c.4
CC) --J 11 ' t13! I I'116 iti- 1-P8 5 g
::) ci- [....... ---- 6 •at ' ' ' IV 7 t 4 isi/1 4. $ _ 5
(1) I
(:) I—L.) H.
Z
--- F-- mmmmmil ›-
"...... i. 'Z' iliiill lilt till!J iidEiT9g9S11 1 --
CL (:) ORI g25t gi. 75 ; itt lil 'q -
I I II 1
ce D ! ; 4' e .al •
LU . g gl ! (!- ! -
SI 1 1 1 i
• i
1 i z • RI
In 2 . z , . r., I 1 1 0 ,'.I1;1' i =
LA , -;
ti . 0 i!: .. , C
a
LA D :‘— U 1 hi : • .; 1 i Z
; &Z Ce 1 1 - '1!* : ;,1 ii I 5
il i W
a 1 . „ 1 P
C
- I '
C-1) _ L--.1 1 1;i;1i 2!!•11! 1 li I ; 11 t :1 2 51 ; 8 Z ,!:4 54 „
4 ' i!- '' 1 ' if --- 1§ '-iit t
? ? I 4
2
g
W
$. &11
1 16,4 i
i il I5 4'1 i M ; 11 i Ili i 1 ilIe, Ig!iI i '
I 1t, li 1i i1n ' ili
2!il ,, 1 il I 2/iilliliW/7:4 7 r il -,
VIII lii I k ilS;i le' slig 1 0 i 1 i tli14 ;lin f i i il
zwre vaioold law* stpume_ • i 44 I a. l
lien IlYtti MIMI SOLI. 1410,2r ., _ ...._ i cf) 1
--r---=°- L otssi'via tua L___ j L ta 12
x N a c:::•1-1 a AVM31VO
E(f)j
1
1
i
...-;-
1 ' , i 1
;•-• ,11 , ', git I,:
i 1
L ,
i 1 114
; k ...
,,, 111t •L' ;,1
t,.
...... 1 ,„,, 1...
_
,i,;,,,1!: .,,,„...,, ,, .iii
1 y
1;• I . 1,k.1,1,1.,1. !! 1
. ; w 11 ii 1 1 1, 4 1 111 il 11! ill
1.
r,, 4 qil le, li lill
., , ,, . . 8,“, d
[ I j II I 1 1
ig Jr 1 1
/I , 1 t a ii 4 — li il Ili ii Ilti
I. ; i i !
L-- ..., -,,, ---t• ,
Lt, ii
°
11 • ' i'-',-,r-- 1
1,6r* „Xi .,
'47,, —',
1 ' i, . . d. /,' '
d li
A
9
,,,. .
t1?
! ,ii• • / '
' . 5,- • .=" 1 '...---.1 1 r
i
I#zit ..,14);,' •,// /_,,e. • /•
a *,:•,-. III I •
//'..(/
i / .4,
.,;,..„.
•
.0: ' /
ir i
i
' '. ... r•-\.- .,.--.10 / /:
2 2 2,
,..,
/
//