The URL can be used to link to this page

HEX Agenda 08/08/2019AGENDA THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 2019 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610 AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING & REGULATION BUILDING, 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE HEARING REPORT PACKETS MUST HAVE THAT MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO COUNTY STAFF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. ALL MATERIALS USED DURING PRESENTATION AT THE HEARING WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. HEARING PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, PRESENTATION BY STAFF, PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPLICANT REBUTTAL. THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE DECISION BY MAIL MAY SUPPLY COUNTY STAFF WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, AND A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECISION MAY SUPPLY THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REVIEW OF AGENDA 3. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PETITION NO. VA-PL20190000913 –325 Cocohatchee, LLC requests a variance from Section 4.02.01 A., Table 2.1 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 75 feet to 25 feet to allow for redevelopment or construction of a single-family home and accessory structures on property located at 325 Cocohatchee Blvd., in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 3.23+/- acres. [Coordinator: John Kelly, Senior Planner] B. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20180003363 – The Richman Group of Florida, Inc. requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 01-10, as amended, the Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD, to amend the Master Plan to reconfigure the preserve and the site design for the residential tracts for property located in the northwest quadrant of I-75 and Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] C. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20190000108 – MPO Properties Sierra Meadows LLC requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 2000-83, the Edison Village Planned Unit Development, to reduce the front yard setback from CR 951 and Lely Cultural Parkway for Lot 12 of the Edison Village subdivision from 29 feet which is the height of the building to 25 feet. The subject PUD consists of 7.44± acres located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Lely Cultural Boulevard in Section 22, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Gil Martinez, Principal Planner] 4. OTHER BUSINESS 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS 6. ADJOURN AGENDA ITEM 3-A TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: AUGUST 8, 2019 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20190000913; 325 COCOHATCHEE BLVD. PROPERTY OWNER/ AGENT: Owner/ Applicant: 325 Cocohatchee LLC 10515 Valencia Lakes Dr. Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REQUESTED ACTION: Agent: Alexis Crespo, AICP Waldrop Engineering, P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Dr., Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider an application for a variance from Section 4.02.01 A., Table 2.1, of the LDC to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 75 feet to 25 feet to allow for redevelopment or construction of a single-family home and accessory structures. The property is located within the Estates (E) zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of Cocohatchee Boulevard within an unrecorded subdivision known as Cocohatchee River Estates in Section 22, Township 48, Range 25, Collier County, Florida, consisting of3.23 acres (See location map on page 2) . VA-PL20190000913; Cocohatchee Blvd. 07/15/2019 Page 1 of 8 VA-PL20190000913; Cocohatchee Blvd. 07/15/2019 ,-.. --.. ··---✓ z Htalth Park Bl.VO --✓ ✓-/ ,/ ,ood ette• ran . a. ro � 0) C: C: 0 N (") i � I 0) I 0 0 I 0 _ _, 0 0) � 0 N ...J a. L; Q) .0 E :::, z C 0 :;::; Q) a. a. ro � C: 0 +,J ro (.) 0 .....J Page 2 of 8 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the redevelopment of the subject unified property as further described below. A Variance from LDC Section 4.02.01, Table 2.1, which requires a minimum rear yard setback of 75 feet in the Estates zoning district to instead allow for a building envelope with a 25-foot rear yard setback. The property is transected by a tributary of the Cocohatchee River which decreases the building envelope as waterfront setbacks are measured to the most restrictive point; property line, bulkhead, shoreline, seawall, control elevation contour, or mean high water line (see LDC Section 1.08.02, Definitions, Yard -Waterfront). In this case the most restrictive point as per a provided survey is the mean high-water line. Any redevelopment of the subject property will maintain compliance with established minimum front and side yards; 75-feet and 30-feet, respectively. The subject property is improved and located within an Estates (E) zoning district. Said property comprises parcels 19, 20 and 21, of an unrecorded subdivision known as Cocohatchee River Estates; said property is also transected by a tributary of the Cocohatchee River which is located within a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay District. The minimum lot size within the E Zoning District is 2.25 acres. Visual observation of the unrecorded subdivision indicates that each of the individual parcels within the subdivision are non-conforming with respect to minimum lot area and/or width requirements. A report obtained from the Collier County Property Appraisers Office reveals the subject parcels were combined for development by means of Building Permit No. 73- 3168 which was issued for a single-family residence. At the time of permitting, the property was within a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning area. The unified property is deemed to be a conforming lot of record as the combined area is 3.23±acres. As a result, the required rear yard setback for the subject property has been increased from 50 feet to 75 feet. The existing single-family residence is deemed to be legal nonconforming. As per LDC Section 9.03.03.A.4, the subject unified property cannot be split or subdivided except as allowed by Code. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: East: South: West: Single-family residential within an Estates (E) zoning district Cocohatchee Blvd. then single-family residential within an Estates (E) zoning district Single-family residential within an Estates (E) zoning district Colliers Tract 22 PUD Tract 06, then Colliers Reserve Drive (Right-of-Way), then Open Space/Recreational area within the Collier Tract 22 PUD VA-PL20190000913; Cocohatchee Blvd. 07/15/2019 Page 3 of 8 ·----···--------------------------------------- Collier County GIS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM); additionally, a portion of the property is located within the Coastal High Hazard Area. This land use category is designed to accommodate a variety of residential uses including single-family, multi-family, duplex, mobile home and mixed-use projects. As stated, the applicant seeks a Variance to reduce the rear yard setback in order to allow for redevelopment or construction of a single-family home and accessory structures which are authorized land uses. The GMP does not address individual variance requests related to land use. VA-PL20190000913; Cocohatchee Blvd. 07/15/2019 Page 4 of 8 ZONING DIVISION ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a.Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? b. c. Yes, a Warranty Deed recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts reveals the property was purchased by the current owner on March 11, 2019. A report obtained from the Collier County Property Appraisers Office reveals the existing residence was constructed by authority of Building Permit No. 73-3168. The subject property is located in an unrecorded that appears to be non-conforming with respect to minimum lot areas. Additionally, a tributary of the Cocohatchee River transects the northwest quadrant of the property; as setbacks for waterfront properties are measured to the most restrictive point, the allowable building footprint is greatly reduced. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes, see above. The parcels were combined for development and initially developed prior to sale of the property to the current owner. Additionally, the aforementioned unique characteristics of the property were not influenced by the current owner. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes, literal interpretation of the waterfront setback from the most restrictive point will render the majority of the subject property undevelopable and will not allow for redevelopment of the site with a structure or structures that are consistent with other homes in the community. Thus, a literal interpretation of the provision will put undue and unnecessary hardship on the Applicant, as well as creating practical difficulties to any renovation/rebuilding efforts. d.Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes, the Variance, if granted, is the minimum required to allow the Applicant to rebuild the subject property while maintaining compatibility with surrounding properties. Allowing this variance will satisfy the intent of the zoning district standards to maintain reasonable separation between neighboring dwelling units and waterbodies, while allowing the Applicant to make reasonable use of their land. e.Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning VA-PL20190000913; Cocohatchee Blvd. 07/15/2019 Page 5 of 8 district? By definition, a Variance bestows some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site. LDC Section 9.04.02 allows relief through the Variance process for any dimensional development standard. As such, other properties facing a similar hardship are entitled to make a similar request and would be conferred equal consideration on a case by case basis. Other lots have received relief from the Estate district setbacks to allow for responsible and compatible redevelopment (See also Resolutions No. 99-327 and 93-80). f.Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes, the granting of the Variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code and will not harm public safety, health and welfare. The existing front yard setback, total height requirement and side yard setback are not being reduced. It is the intent of the zoning code to maintain appropriate separation between neighboring structures. By allowing a reduced waterfront/rear setback requirement, the Applicant is keeping with the intent and purpose of the zoning, while recognizing the unique hardships being present on the subject property. g.Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goalsand objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes, the subject property is transected by a tributary of the Cocohatchee River. Any proposed structure(s) will be elevated to minimum base flood elevations (which the current structure does not meet); thereby enhancing the goals of such flood mitigation regulations. h.Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Yes, approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the GMP with respect to density, intensity, compatibility, access/connectivity, or any other applicable prov1s10ns. ENVIRONMENTAL AD VISORY COUNCIL {EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The EAC does not normally hear variance petitions. Since the subject variance doesn't impact any preserve area, the EAC did not hear this petition. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition. A portion of the property contains Special Treatment Overlay (ST). Although no construction is proposed to occur within the ST area, any proposed future impacts within the Special Treatment area will require a ST permit prior to the issuance of the building permit. No listed animal species were observed on the property. If wetlands are present on the property and will be impacted, an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), or a Letter of Exemption from Florida Department of Environmental Protection will be required during the building permit review. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC VA-PL20190000913; Cocohatchee Blvd. 07/15/2019 Page 6 of 8 scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The Office of the County Attorney reviewed this staff report on July 23, 2019. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner approve variance petition VA PL20190000913, to reduce the minimum eastern rear yard setback from 75 feet to 25 feet for redevelopment or construction of a single-family home and accessory structures, at 325 Cocohatchee Boulevard, located within unincorporated Collier County, Florida. Attachments: Attachment A: Legal Description of Property Attachment B: Proposed Site Plan Attachment C: Zoning Verification Letter -PL20190000592 Attachment D: Applicant's Backup Package VA-PL20190000913; Cocohatchee Blvd. 07/15/2019 Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: D V. EL OWS, ZONING MANAGER ISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION MICHAEL BOSI, AICP. DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION VA-PL20190000913; Cocohatchee Blvd. 07/15/2019 I DATE I DILTE DATE Page 8 of 8 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Variance VA-PL2019-0000913 Hearing Examiner Package VARIANCE APPLICATION 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Variance VA-PL2019-0000913 Hearing Examiner Package DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST FORM 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Variance VA-PL2019-0000913 Hearing Examiner Package COVER LETTER/NARRTIVE STATEMENET 325 Cocohatchee Blvd Variance Petition Page 1 of 4 May 8, 2019 John Kelly, Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, Florida 34104 RE: 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Variance PL20180002054 Dear Mr. Kelly: On behalf of 325 Cocohatchee LLC (“Applicant”), enclosed please find a variance petition relating to waterfront/rear yard setbacks for the property located at 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is a 3.23+/-acre parcel developed with one (1) single-family detached dwelling unit and accessory structures. The site is located in an established single-family community located north of Immokalee Road and east of US 41 in northwestern Collier County. An aerial exhibit depicting the project location is attached to this application. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The Subject Property was originally zoned Agricultural (A) when the existing primary and accessory structures were built in 1974. The Agricultural zoning district setbacks applicable at the time were a 50’ front yard setback; a 30’side yard setback; and 50’ rear yard setback. The subject property was rezoned in 1982 to the Estate (E) Zoning District. This zoning district was originally created to regulate residential development in the Golden Gates Estates community and appears to have been applied to the subject property and surrounding parcels due to the large- lot character of the area. The Estate (E) Zoning District development regulations applicable to single-family dwelling units increased the minimum front and rear yard setbacks to 75 feet, regardless of being a waterfront lot or not, while side yard setbacks remained the same at30 feet. Thus, the Estates zoning designation required larger setbacks than what was allowed by the Agricultural zoning district under which the property was developed. REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting the following variance from the zoning regulations set forth in the Estate zoning district: 325 Cocohatchee Blvd Variance Petition Page 2 of 4 1. Variance from Land Development Code Sec. 4.02.01 Table 2.1., which requires a minimum rear yard/waterbody setback of 75 feet in the Estate zoning district; whereas the applicant is requesting a 25-foot rear yard/waterbody setback measured from the mean high water line of a tributary of the Cocohatchee River. Development of the parcel will maintain compliance with the minimum front, side and rear setbacks as measured from all lot lines. JUSTIFICATION: The Applicant purchased the property in March 2019 with the intent to redevelop the existing, antiquated residential structure with a new single-family dwelling unit and accessory structures that are of similar size, scale, and quality when compared to other properties in the neighborhood. As shown on the attached Variance Site Plan, the parcels neighboring the Subject Property are developed with single-family homes that do not meet the Estates zoning district site development standards. Specifically, the single-family home located north of the Subject Property at 405 Cocohatchee Blvd. is located 15.5’ from the shared property line, and significantly encroaching into the required side yard setback. This encroachment by the neighboring property owner is a key reason for this variance request, as shifting the proposed dwelling unit away from the shared property line will achieve privacy and large intervening yard space between structures, but also results in closer proximity to the Cocohatchee River tributary that bisects the property. The Subject Property is unique in that the tributary runs through the middle of the parcel boundary, thus creating unique geographical conditions to contend with from a development setback standpoint. It is important to note that all other setbacks, building height and lot requirements will be in compliance with the existing Estate (E) Zoning District development standards. The variance request is based on solid design and engineering principals, and provides for appropriate design flexibility in the subject property due to the unique geographical conditions of the site. This setback variance does not increase density or intensity of the subject property. Moreover, the proximity of the building to the external lot lines is not changing, i.e. the Applicant is not seeking this variance to encroach in the front or side yards, thereby eliminating impact to neighbors. VARIANCE CRITERIA: The following is a detailed analysis of this request’s compliance with the variance review criteria set forth in LDC Section 9.04.03: 1. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved. Yes, a tributary of the Cocohatchee River uniquely runs through the middle of the Subject Property. This creates a waterfront setback in the middle of the lot, as well as standard front, rear and side yard setbacks. The rezoning of the Property to the Estates zoning district following development of many of the homes in the community under the former Agricultural zoning district standards also creates a unique constraint specific to this location of the County. 325 Cocohatchee Blvd Variance Petition Page 3 of 4 2. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. As noted above, the subject property was built in 1974 with the Rural Agricultural (A-2) Zoning District setback requirements by others. The tributary running through the property is also a naturally occurring features that is not due to the action of the Applicant. 3. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. Yes, literal interpretation of the waterfront setback from the mean high water line will render the majority of the subject property undevelopable and will not allow for redevelopment of the site with a structure that is consistent with other homes in the community. Thus, a literal interpretation of the provision will put undue and unnecessary hardship on the Applicant, as well as creating practical difficulties to any renovation/rebuilding efforts. 4. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety or welfare. The variance that is being requested is the minimum required to allow the property owner to rebuild the subject’s property while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding subject properties. Allowing this variance will meet the intention of the zoning district standards to maintain reasonable separation between neighboring dwelling units and waterbodies, while allowing the Applicant to make reasonable use of their land. 5. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. No, the variance will not confer on the petitioner special privileges. Other lots have received similar relief from the Estate district setbacks to allow for responsible and compatible redevelopment (See also Resolutions No. 99-327 and 93-80). 6. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The existing front yard setback, total height requirement and side yard setback are not being reduced via this request. The zoning code’s intention is to maintain appropriate separation between neighboring structures. By allowing a reduced waterfront/rear setback requirement, the Applicant is keeping with the intent and purpose of the zoning, while recognizing the unique hardships being present on the subject property. Approval will not result in any negative impact on the surrounding properties. 7. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. 325 Cocohatchee Blvd Variance Petition Page 4 of 4 Yes, the subject property is bisected by a tributary of the Cocohatchee River. The structure will be elevated to minimum base flood elevations (which the current structure does not meet); thereby enhancing the goals of such flood mitigation regulations. 8. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan The variance request is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in the Growth Management Plan, including the maximum allowable density and residential use per the underlying Urban Residential Subdistrict future land use designation. Based upon the above analysis, the Applicant respectfully requests approval of this variance petition. The approval will uphold the intent of the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. The request complies with the variance review criteria, and will not negatively impact compatibility, public health, safety or welfare. If you have and further questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (239) 405-7777, ext. 207, or alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. Alexis V. Crespo, AICP, LEED AP Senior Vice President - Planning Enclosures cc: Chadd Hodges, Best Home Services. Stephen Peel, Gulfstream Homes & ARCS Construction 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Variance VA-PL2019-0000913 Hearing Examiner Package EXECUTED AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FORM 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Variance VA-PL2019-0000913 Hearing Examiner Package SITE PLAN PARCEL 16PARCEL 15PARCEL 14PARCEL 13PARCEL 18 PARCEL 22 COCOHATCHEE BOULEVARD(60' R.OW.)113.1'EXISTING DWELLING15.5'EXISTING DWELLINGST OVERLAY PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPERTY BOUNDARY ST OVERLAY 25' WATERFRONT / REAR SETBACK 1 1 1 30' SIDE YARD SETBACK 75' FRONT YARD SETBACK C O C O H A T C H E E R I V E R MEAN HIGH WATER LINE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE 30' WATERFRONT / SIDE YARD SETBACK 25' WATERFRONT / REAR SETBACK CLIENT: 325 COCOHATCHEE LLC1 0 SCALE IN FEET 20 40 80WALDROPENGINEERINGCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTSSET NUMBER: SHEET :28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.comB:\Projects\998-001 (325 Cocohatchee Blvd) Variance\Drawings-Exhibits\998-001-02 Variance Site Plan\Current Plans\9980010201.dwg7/22/2019 10:42:15 AM07/15/19 MEAN HIGH LEVEL WATER MARK REVISION325 COCOHATCHEEBLVDVARIANCE SITE PLANFLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636PLAN REVISIONSREV00 <<SUBMITTED / BID SET>> XX/XX/XX998-001-021VARIANCE REQUEST WATERFRONT/ REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE LOCATION (SEC. 4.02.01 TABLE 2.1)1 PROJECT DATA LOCATION 325 COCOHATCHEE BLVD NAPLES, FL ACREAGE 3.23 ACRES ZONING DESIGNATION ESTATE (E) SPECIAL TREATMENT (ST) OVERLAY LEGEND WATER BODY ST OVERLAY BUILDABLE AREA VARIANCE LOCATION# 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Variance VA-PL2019-0000913 Hearing Examiner Package NIM/VARIANCE NOTIFICATION LETTER / MAILING LABELS July 8, 2019 RE: 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Variance PL20190000913 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that 325 Cocohatchee, LLC (the Applicant) has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as it applies to the following described property: 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Naples, FL 34110 The Applicant intends to redevelop the existing residential structure with a new single-family dwelling unit and accessory structures. This improvement requires a variance to the required rear yard setback, as measured from the top of bank of a tributary of the Cocohatchee River, which bisects the property. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting the following variance from the zoning regulations set forth in Collier County’s Land Development Code (LDC): 1) Variance from Section 4.02.01 A., Table 2.1 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 75 feet to 25 feet to allow for redevelopment or construction of a single-family home and accessory structure on property located in the Estate zoning district at 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 3.23+/-acres. Please note the dwelling unit will meet or exceed all setbacks to the neighboring lot lines. Please be advised that we are interested in assuring you that our request should not adversely affect your property interest. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (239) 850-8525 or alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. Alexis V. Crespo, AICP, LEED AP Senior Vice President - Planning 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Variance VA-PL2019-0000913 Hearing Examiner Package BOUNDARY SURVEY 325 Cocohatchee Blvd. Variance VA-PL2019-0000913 Hearing Examiner Package SIGN POST AFFIDAVIT & PROOF AGENDA ITEM 3-B TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: AUGUST 8, 2019 SUBJECT: PDI-PL20180003363; COLLIER BOULEVARD MIXED USE COMMERCE CENTER PUD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner: Applicant (Contract Purchaser): Magnolia Pond Road Development Company, LLC The Richman Group of Florida, Inc . 2385 NW Executive Center Dr. Ste 370 477 S. Rosemary Ave. #301 Boca Raton, FL 33431 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Agent: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Hearing Examiner approve an insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 01-10, as amended, the Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD, to amend the Master Plan to reconfigure the preserve and the site design for the residential tracts. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located in the northwest quadrant ofl-75 and Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (see location map on page 3) PDI-PL20180003363 Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD Revised: July 15, 2019 Page 1 of 9 PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: In 2001, the 70.2-acre property was rezoned from Rural Agricultural (A) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) pursuant to Ordinance O 1-10 allowing for a maximum of 433 dwelling units based on a gross density of 10 dwelling units on 43.3 acres, a mix of 270,000 square feet of gross leasable area for retail and office uses on 25.3 acres, and 1.6 acres for rights-of-way. On February 27, 2019, the petitioner applied for an insubstantial change to the Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD, to amend the Master Plan to reconfigure the preserve and the site design for the residential tracts to facilitate a proposed rental apartment project. The reconfiguration of the preserve will result in the further preservation of a larger and more contiguous area of high quality habitat. The reconfiguration of the overall site design of the PUD includes lake and preserve rearrangements, road design changes, a decrease of roadway access points, residential area placements, and a potential gated interconnection between the residential and commercial areas. (See Attachment A) Intentionally blank PDI-PL20180003363 Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD Revised: July 15, 2019 Page 2 of9 '"O 0 � r N 0 ->, (X) 0 0 0 (.,) (.,) CJ) (.,) () & �- Cll 0 C ro < Ql a. s: x· CD a. C (/) CD () 0 3 3 CD 0 () CD ::J � '"O C 0 '"O Ql (C CD (.,) s. c.o ;:a '"O CD 0 <--• I (/) '"O CD r C!-N c....� !:. (X) '< 0 ->, 0 u,O -(.,) NW om->, (.,) c.o () & ro· -, Cll 0 C ro < Ql a. s: x· CD a. C (/) CD () 0 3 3 CD 0 CD () CD ::J � '"O C 0 :, tL!1�·1 � � Lt l� � PROJECT fJ ,-[:UL - ' 6 � � m �r------ 0 (;) L Location Map Petition Number: PL20180003363 Zoning Map SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of the Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD: North: East: South: West: Developed multi-family residential, with a current zoning of Golden Gate Commerce Park PUD (9.0 DU/AC) which is approved for residential, retail, office, and hotel Collier Boulevard, a six-lane arterial roadway, and then developed with warehousing and distribution facilities, with a zoning designation of City Gate Commerce Park MPUD and approved for a mixture of uses including commercial, industrial, office, hotel/motel, and a Sports Complex 1-75, a four-lane highway, and then developed with multi-family residential, with a current zoning designation of Saddlebrook Village PUD (12.96 DU/AC) which is approved for multi-family rental apartments. To the east of Saddlebrook Village PUD is developed with residential, with a current zoning designation of East Gateway MPUD (16.0 DU/AC) which is approved for a mixed-use development. To the east of East Gateway MPUD, is undeveloped vacant land, with a current zoning designation of I-75/Alligator Alley MPUD (10.4 DU/AC) which is approved for mixed-use development Undeveloped land, with a current zoning designation of Magnolia Pond MPUD (4.9 DU/AC) which is approved for single and multi-family development and an assisted living facility Source: Passarella & Associates, Inc . PDI-PL20180003363 Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD Revised: July 15, 2019 Page 4 of 9 STAFF ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Planning: Because this application is not adding uses or increasing the intensity of the previously approved uses in the Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD, it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). See Attachment D for the complete report from Comprehensive Planning staff. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 60.48 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 15 .12 acres (25%) preserve is required; it shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The PUD preserve requirement is 15.12 acres (25% of 60.48 acres). The PUD Master Plan provides a total of 15.12 acres of preserve. Preserve amount was previously approved by PUD Ordinance O 1-10, which was issued in March 2001. The reconfiguration of the preserve area creates a larger consolidated preserve area which is encouraged and supported by the Land Development Code; therefore, staff supports the proposed modification. The listed species survey revealed one gopher tortoise ( Gopherus Polyphemus) was observed onsite with 18 gopher tortoise burrows. The burrows were in the western and central portions of the project. A gopher tortoise relocation permit will need to be obtained from the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) prior to approval of the first development order. The proposed project is located within the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus ). A cavity tree was observed onsite with the potential to contain Bonneted Bat; however, no evidence was found indicating the tree was being utilized. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this project consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. The access changes proposed on Magnolia Pond reduce the number of access points resulting in fewer potential conflicts and does not change traffic distribution patterns. The number of residential dwelling units/traffic generation does not change, and the master plan does provide internal interconnection; therefore, there are no additional impacts proposed with the change from the previous findings of approval. Landscape Review: Landscape staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents and found no issue with consistency. Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code set forth the criteria by which insubstantial amendments to a PUD Master Plan and/or minor text changes to a PUD document are to be reviewed before they can be approved. The criteria and a response to each have been listed as follows: PDI-PL20180003363 Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD Revised: July 15, 2019 Page 5 of 9 •10.02.13.E.1 a.Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)? No, there is no proposed change in the boundary of the PUD. b.Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development? No, there is no proposed increase in the number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development. c.Is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development in excess of five (5) percent of the total acreage previously designated as such, or five (5) acres in area? d. No, there is no proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development as designated on the approved Master Plan. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses ( excluding preservation, conservation or open space), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses? There would be no increase to the size of areas used for non-residential uses and no relocation of non-residential uses. e.Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited to increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts on other public facilities? No, there are no substantial impacts resulting from this amendment. f.Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers? g. The proposed amendment would not result in land use activities that generate higher levels of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise increase stormwater discharge? No, the proposed changes will not impact or increase stormwater retention or increase stormwater discharge. PDI-PL20180003363 Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD Revised: July 15, 2019 Page 6 of 9 h.Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use? No. There will be no incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. i.Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD Document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of intensity of the permitted land uses? j. No. Staff from Comprehensive Planning staff determined the proposed changes to the PUD Document would be consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Both environmental and Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition, and no changes to the PUD Document are proposed that would be deemed inconsistent with the CCME or the Transportation Element of the GMP. This petition does not propose any increase in density or intensity of the permitted land uses. The proposed change is to a PUD District designated as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and approved pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statues, where such change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to Sec. 380.06 (19), F.S. Any change that meets the criterion of Sec. 380.06 (19 )(e)2., F.S., and any changes to a DRI/PUD Master Plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier County under Section 10.02.13 of the LDC. The project is not a DRI. k.Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD Document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under Section(s) 10.02.13 E.? Based upon the analysis provide above, the proposed change is not deemed to be substantial. Section 10.02.13.E.2 Does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original application? The staff report with the associated findings of fact are unavailable from the original "PUD- 00-16 file." It is important to note that the rezoning criteria have not changed since the original analysis conducted in 2000. As such, staff had reanalyzed the PUD and has concluded that this conforms to the findings in the Land Development Code. See Attachment B for analysis . PDI-PL20180003363 Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD Revised: July 15, 2019 Page 7 of 9 DEVIATION DISCUSSION: No deviations are being requested as part of this application. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): NIM was waived via email correspondence from HEX Examiner Mark Strain on April 15, 2019. (See Attachment C) COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's office reviewed this Staff Report on July 15, 2019. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner approve Petition PDI PL20180003363. Attachments: A) B) C) D) E) Proposed site plan revision Findings of Fact NIM waiver email FLUE Consistency Review dated June 27, 2019 Application/Backup Materials PDI-PL20180003363 Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD Revised: July 15, 2019 Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: TIMOTHYFINN,lCP,PRINCIP AL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: V.LLOWS, ZONING MANAGER !VISION MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION PDI-PL20180003363 Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD Revised: July 12, 2019 71,L .119 DATE DATE Page 9 of 9