Agenda 09/23/2008 Item #16A 1Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 1 of 26
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve a PUD amendment zoning fee reduction request for the Orangetree PUD
petition, PUDRr2003 -AR -3608: Orangetree Associates, petitioner, represented by Davidson Engineering,
Inc.
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) determine whether granting a fee reduction to the
petitioner is in the best interest of Collier County.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Orangetree Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment was submitted on January 14, 2003. The
petition had been scheduled for hearings before the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on April 7,
2005. The petitioner filed for an indefinite continuance request because of unresolved transportation issues that
arose just prior to the CCPC hearing regarding access, drainage and right -of -way issues. The applicant's agent
continued to work with Transportation Planning staff to resolve the issues through 2007. Transportation
Planning staff confirmed via e -mail on September 26, 2006, that discussions with the petitioner were still
underway at that time. A partial resubmittal was made on February 7, 2007, however the transportation issues
have not been resolved.
Additionally, the agent was notified that there was an outstanding issue regarding the Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) for this project. The agent was advised via e -mails and a formal letter sent on March 8, 2007 to
resolve that issue. This issue has not yet been resolved.
On April 11, 2007, the agent sent a letter to the Regional Planning Council (RPC) asking the RPC to determine
whether the proposed amendment would require any DRI review. On May 1, 2007, the RPC advised the
petitioner's agent that he needed to seek a determination from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
rather than the RPC. The petitioner's agent submitted a formal Clearance Letter to DCA on October 31, 2007
seeking a DRI status determination. On December 20, 2007, DCA responded to the petitioner advising him that
he needed to submit a request to modify the Vested Rights Letter of 1986 pursuant to Florida Statutes and the
Florida Administrative Code to get an answer to the DRI status question.
As of July 8, 2008, the petitioner's agent indicated in an e-mail message that he had not submitted the request to
modify the Vested Rights Letter to DCA, and could not provide a targeted date, but he indicated that the
documents were in the "tweaking stages."
The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) allows an application for a PUD amendment to be deemed
closed if there has been no activity on the application for a period of six (6) months. Several times staff has
approached the petitioner about closing this petition, however with the outstanding DRI issue, staff and the
petitioner's agent have agreed that is it more prudent to allow the petitioner's agent to resolve that issue and
then resubmit for the PUD amendment based upon the DRI finding rather than closing the current petition and
requiring the submittal of an entirely new application. This approach is acceptable as long as the petitioner's
agent is working towards an eventual resubmittal.
In the interim, the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Fee Schedule has been
amended to require an additional fee payment in the amount of 20 percent of the original fee for subsequent
resubmittals (Resolution Number 2008 -152). That was not the case when this petition was submitted. When
this petition was originally submitted in 2003, there was no resubmittal fee. This petition was originally
proposed to be just a minor PUD amendment. However issues were raised during the review that made the
Orangetree PUD fee reduction request Page 1 of 2
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 2 of 26
petition much more complex. Additionally since 2003, amendments to the LDC have added additional
regulations that must be addressed.
The petitioner has agreed to address all new regulations as part of the next resubmittal and pay additional
money to offset the increased review that will be required for this petition. For comparison's sake, in 2003 the
petition paid a fee of $2,715. If a new PUD application was submitted the current base fee with acreage would
be $23,400 ($8,000 for the amendment + 15,400 [616 acres $25 /acre]). Based on today's fees, the correct
resubmittal fee (including additional one time fees not paid with the initial submittal to at least partially recover
advertising and miscellaneous review fees for Environmental staff that are now collected "up front ") would be
$8,453. This breaks down to:
$4,680 resubmittal fee of 20 percent
1,273 uncollected advertising fees
+2,500 uncollected Environmental Review fee
$8,453 total resubmittal fee per current fee schedule
Therefore, staff and the petitioner's agent have discussed the possibility of a compromise regarding the
resubmittal fee to address the changes. Staff proposed that the petitioner pay $8,453 as noted above to cover
the uncollected fees and the 20 percent resubmittal fee. Any subsequent resubmittals would be assessed the
$4,600 resubmittal fee that has been established by the Collier County Community Development and
Environmental Services Fee Schedule. This solution is acceptable to the petitioner's agent.
The Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Fee Schedule states that only the
BCC can reduce or waive fees, therefore staff advised the petitioner that BCC approval would be required for
this request. Staff believes the outstanding Transportation and DRI status issues require additional
consideration and proposes that allowances be provided to the petitioner provided to allow the petitioner as
long as the petitioner's agent continues to actively work to resolve the outstanding issues.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fee that has been agreed upon is more than what would be generated from a resubmittal of the current
petition, but less than what would be generated if a new petition was submitted as identified above.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT:
The Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address fees thus no impact to the GMP is anticipated.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
In accordance with Resolution No. 2008 -152, the Board of County Commissioners may agree to accept a
resubmittal fee of $8,453 and waive a new PUD application fee in excess of this amount. This item is ready for
Board consideration and approval. (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the BCC approve the requested fee reduction.
PREPARED BY:
Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
Orangetree PUD fee reduction request Page 2 of 2
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 3 of 26
Recommendation to approve a PUD amendment zoning fee reduction request for the Orangetree
PUD petition, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608: Orangetree Associates, petitioner, represented by Davidson
Engineering, Inc.
Prepared By:
Department Date
Zoning and Land Development Review 9/5/2008 10:54:44 AM
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
Transportation
Approved
9/10/2008 9:58 AM
Planning
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
Transportation
Approved
9/15/2008 9:02 AM
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
Zoning and Land
Development
Approved
9/11/2008 3:49 PM
Review
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
Zoning and Land
Development
Approved
9/11/20083:49 PM
Review
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
Transportation
Approved
9/15/2008 9:02 AM
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 4 of 26
Approved By:
Department Approval
County Attorney Approved
Approved By:
Department Approval
CDES Approved
Approved By:
Date
9/15/2008 11:57 AM
Date
9/15/2008 12:44 PM
Department Approval Date
Office of
Management Approved 9/15/2008 5:06 PM
and Budget
Approved By:
Department Approval Date
County Approved 9/16/2008 11:06 AM
Manager's Office
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:
Description:
Type:
❑ Executive_Summory fee
reduction request 7- 29- 08.doc
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
❑ Orange Tree Hancock
Letter 4-11 -07 odf
Letter from Agent regarding the DRI issue dated 4 -11 -07
Backup Material
❑ RPC response to 4- -11 -07
letter.doc
Response for RPC regarding 4 -11 -07 letter
Backup Material
❑ letter fr_o_m_DCA 12-20-
DCA response (12/20/07) to reguest from Agent requesting
07,pdf
clearance letter dated 10 -31 -07
Backup Material
CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING • LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
April 11, 2007
Mr. Daniel L. Trescott
Principal Planner
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
1926 Victoria Avenue
Fort Myers, FL 33901
Item # 16A1
September 23,
D of 26
DAVIDSON
ENGINEERING
Subject: DRI threshold review, Orangetree PUD, Collier County, Florida.
Dear Mr. Trescott;
Collier County is reviewing an amendment to the Orangetree PUD (Collier PUDZ -2003-
AR -3608) and the Principal Planner is requiring that we obtain a "written document from
Dan Trescott at the RPC that this project is not a DRL" I believe you may have had a
discussion regarding this matter with Kay Deselem, the planner with Collier County
reviewing this project.
The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation from you that the addition of 1,650
residential units and 249,000 square feet of commercial square footage to the existing
Orangetree PUD does not result in the project becoming a DRI.
To assist you in your review, I offer the following facts and information:
1. On January 27, 1986 what is now known as the Orangetree PUD was party to a
"Settlement and Zoning Agreement" that included rezoning the property to "PUD
by Settlement." That settlement included 2,100 residential units and 60,000
square feet of commercial development.
2. The Orangetree PUD received a Binding letter of Interpretation of Vested Rights
Status from the Department of Community Affairs on April 8, 1986 (attached)
confirming that the aforementioned development was vested and therefore was
not required to comply with the review requirements of Section 380.06, Florida
Statutes.
3. Careful review of that document as confirmed by Collier County Long Range
Planning Staff provides that "Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or
commercial acreage within the geographic boundaries of this District will not be
prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above referenced status." In short,
development beyond what is vested may occur on the site and are individually
subject to review.
4. You issued a letter to Rick Joudrey of Davidson Engineering dated September 23,
2002 that concluded an increase of up to 1,650 residential units and 249,000 sq. ft.
of retail development within the Orangetree PUD would not be considered a DRI
(attached).
2154 Trade Center Way, Suite #3 Naples, Florida 34109 Phone: 239.597.3916 Fax: 239.597.5195
w .davidsonengineering.com
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
DIE of 26
DAVIDSON
ENGINEERING
4
5. In January 1988 and March and April of 1989, Citrus Grove Partners purchased
approximately 616 acres of agricultural land from the Orangetree PUD. This
purchase was for agricultural land for the purpose of developing a citrus grove
and was devoid of any development rights that were subject to the Vested Rights
Status established by DCA in 1986.
6. Further confirmation of this is contained in the Collier County Staff Report
developed as part of the review process of the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD
(Collier County Ordinance 04 -74) which states on page 2 of 77(attached) that
"The acreage reduction will increase the density from .76 units per acre to .98
units per acre (in the Orangetree PUD), however the approved maximum number
of dwelling units of 2,100 will not change and therefore, the proposed amendment
does not increase the vested number of dwelling units or commercial land uses."
7. The Orange Blossom Ranch property was not and is not under any form of
common ownership as that of the Orangetree PUD and must therefore be
reviewed with regard to DRI thresholds as a "stand alone" project and not in the
aggregate of being combined with the Orangetree PUD.
8. Numerous land uses amendments have been made to the Orangetree PUD over
time, but none have added development above the vested 2.100 units and 60,000
commercial square feet.
Based on the aforementioned points, your letter of September 23, 2002 is still in effect
and accurately reflects that the addition of 1,650 dwelling units and 249,000 square feet
of retail commercial development to the vested level of development does not constitute a
DRI. Please once again confirm your position in writing so that the project may move
forward with Collier County Planning Staff review.
If you feel the information contained in this letter and the attachments are insufficient to
determine that the proposed project is not a DRI, the property owner requests the
opportunity to discuss any outstanding matters prior to the issuance of a written
determination. You can contact me directly with any questions and I thank you in
advance for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Tim Hancock, AICP
Director of Planning
Cc: Steve Lowitz, w /enclosures
Roberto Bollt, w /enclosures
Burt Saunders, w /enclosures
Kay Deselem, w/o enclosures
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Pag 6
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2S71 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
000 GRAHAM
Goa Ior
Ms. Tasha Buford
Suite 200
225 S. Adams Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Dear Ms. Buford:
April 8, 1986
TOM•LEWIS, It
' +Secretary
.r .
Binding Letter of Interpretation of Vested Rights
Status; Binding Letter of Interpretation of Modifi-
cation to a Development of Regional Impact With
Vested Rights= and Vested Rights Status Notification
File No. BLIVR- 986 -004; SLIM7986 -007; and VRS- 986 -074
North Golden Gate
We have evaluated your applications for Binding Letters and
your notification of vested rights status dated December 19, 1985
and received December 20, 1985. Based on the information con-
tained in the applications and other information obtained during
the review of the development proposal, we enter the following
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The North Golden Gate project is currently proposed to
contain 2,100 dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of commercial
facilities with an unknown number of parking spaces on 22 acres
and 1,600 acres of agriculture within a total site comprising
2,797.83 acres. The applicants claim that they have a vested
right to construct 11,926 dwelling units, 185 acres of commercial
facilities and 72.7 acres of industrial facilities. This claim
is based on local government plat approval of a previously pro-
posed development for the site and the developer's reliance and
change of position prior to July 1, 1973, the effective date of
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (F.S.)
2. The development site is located in sections 22, 23, 26
and 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, and
is situated about eight miles southwest of the Town of Immokalee
and about four miles east of Lee County,, the nearest adjacent
county. A location map is attached as Exhibit "A ".
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT" HOUSING ANJ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT" RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Item # 16A1
September 23, 008
Page 8 of 26
Ms. Tasha Buford
April 8, 1986
Page Two
3. The applicants are Tasha Buford and George Varnadoe,
authorized representatives for the Agro Development Corporation,
which proposes to develop and is seeking determinations of vested
rights and of modifications to a Development of Regional Impact
(DRI) with vested rights for North Golden Gate. In addition,
notification of a claim of vested rights based on plat approval
has been received, pursuant to the requirements of Paragraph
380.06(20)(a), F.S.
4. Because the original project received local government
approval prior to October 1, 1985, the effective date of Chapter
380, Florida Statutes (F.S.) (1985), the applicable DRI guide-
lines for the development are Rules 27F -2.05, 27F -2.10 and 27F-
2.12, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Rule 27F- 2.05(2),
F.A.C., states that any proposed industrial, manufacturing, or
processing plant under common ownership, or any proposed indus-
trial park under common ownership which provides sites for indus-
trial, manufacturing or processing activity, which occupies a
site greater than one (1) square mile, is presumed to be a DRI.
The industrial component of the original North Golden Gate project,
on 72.7 acres, does not exceed the presumptive threshold for
industrial development.
Rule 27F -2.10, F.A.C., states that any proposed residential
development that is planned to create or accommodate 750 dwelling
units or more in a county with a population between 50,001 and
100,000 is presumed to be a DRI. Rule 27F -2.10, F.A.C., also
states that, " ..the population of the county shall be the most
recent estimate for that county, at the time of the application
for a development permit." In this case, the application for a
development permit for North Golden Gate occurred prior to July
1, 1973, the effective date of Chapter 380, F.S. Thus, for the
purposes of this binding letter, the 1973 Collier County popula-
tion level is the appropriate population estimate to determine
the residential threshold.
In 1973, Collier County had a population between 50,001 and
100,000 persons. Therefore, the applicable DRI residential
threshold to be applied in this binding letter is 750 dwelling
units. The residential component of the original North Golden
Gate development, consisting of 11,926 dwelling units, exceeds
the presumptive threshold for residential development.
Rule 27F -2.12, F.A.C., provides that any proposed retail or
wholesale business establishment or group of establishments oper-
ated under one common property ownership or management that
encompasses more than 40 acres is presumed to be a DRI. The
retail portion of the original North Golden Gate, consisting of
Item # 16A1
September 23,
Page 9 of 26
Ms. Tasha Buford
April B, 1986
Page Three
185 acres, exceeds the presumptive threshold for retail develop-
ment. _
The original North Golden Gate development exceeds the
applicable residential and retail thresholds. Therefore, it is
presumed to be a DRI.
5. The applicants are seeking a vested rights determination
under Subsection 380.06(20), Florida Statutes (F.s.), to
establish that the North Golden Gate development is vested for
11,926 dwelling units, 72.7 acres of industrial facilities and
185 acres of commercial facilities and will not be subject to the
review requirements of Chapter 380, F.S. The applicants have
notified the Department of their claim to vested rights pursuant
to Paragraph 380.06(20)(a), F.S., for Units 3 -7 of North Golden
Gate. Furthermore, the applicants are seeking a determination on
whether changes that have been made to the vested plan since July
1, 1973, constitute a substantial modification to the vested
plan. The applicants have provided the following information for
the vested rights determination and the modification to the
vested plan.
A. Proiect History
1)
The following events occurred prior to July 1, 1973:
a) Zoning approval for the entire project and plat
review and approval of Units 1 and 2 was granted
-by -the Collier County Commission on 'June 6,
1967;
b) Plat review and approval of Units 3 -7 was grant-
ed by the Collier County Commission between
August 1, 1967 and July 1, 1973;
c) Units 1 -7 were registered with the Florida
Division of Land Sales pursuant to Chapter 498,
F.S.;
d) In order to obtain zoning and plat approval from
Collier County, the original developer, Gulf
American. Corporation (GAC), was required to
dedicate and convey certain streets, parks and
other property to the County, A Bonding Agree-
ment was entered which pledged to Collier County
accounts receivable by GAC from lot purchasers
in order to secure the completion of works,
improvements, and other installations on the
property. The GAC executed a Corporate Bond to
Item # 16A1
September 23, 008
Page 10 of 26
Ms. Tasha Buford
April 8, 1986
Page Four
Collier County in the amount of 1109 of the
estimated cost of providing pavement, - drainage
and other structural improvements. The GAC also
delivered to Collier County, as Trustee, a War-
ranty Deed conveying Sections 15, 21 and 22,
Township 51 South, Range.29 East, Collier Coun-
ty, Florida, to provide additional security for
completion of the required improvements, works
and installations on the property.
e) Approximately 808 of the following actual ex-
penditures for initial land development were
made prior to July 1, 1973:
Purpose Qf Work
Land Clearing
Earthwork
Drainage
Survey and Lay -out
Design Engineering /Planning
TOTAL
80%
f) As of October 31, 1972, about
expended in Units 1 and 2 for
neering, land clearing, canal
hauling and spreading, rough
drainage construction;
PMT t
$ 290,000
1,200,000
60,000
70,000
80.000
$1,700,000
$1,360,000
$'450,000 had been
planning, engi-
ekcavation, fill
road grading and
g) Land clearing and site preparation began in
1967. The construction of roads, canals,
bridges and weirs followed. As of December 31,
1972, three miles of canals had been completed,
including canals in Units 1 and 2.
2) The applicants now propose to build 2,100 dwelling
units, 60,000 square feet of commercial facilities
on 22 acres and 1,600 acres of agriculture on the
same total acreage. The road system will be modi-
fied and a 55 -acre parcel will be Aonated for public
use.
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 11 of 26
Ms. Tasha Buford
April 8, 1986
Page Five
B. Authorization. Reliance and Change gf position
Subsection 380.06(20), F.S., provides that;
"Nothing in this section shall limit or modify the
rights of any person to complete any development
that has been authorized by registration of a sub-
division pursuant to Chapter 498, by recordation
pursuant to local subdivision plat law, or by a
building permit or other authorizations to commence
development on which there has been reliance and a
change of position, and which registration or
recordation was accomplished, or which permit or
authorization was issued, prior to July 1, 1973."
Paragraph 380.06(20)(a), F.S., provides that:
"approval pursuant to local subdivision plat law,
ordinances, or regulations of a subdivision plat by
formal vote of a county or municipal governmental
body having jurisdiction after August 1, 1967, and
prior to July 1, 1973, is sufficient to vest all
property rights for the purposes of this subsec-
tion; and no action in reliance on, or change. of
position concerning, such local governmental
approval is required for vesting'to take place.
Anyone claiming vested`rights under this'paragraph
must so notify the department in writing by January
1, 1986."
The applicants submitted information regarding the
rezoning and plat approvals for the North Golden Gate
site on December 20, 1985. The applicants contend that
GAC received authorization to commence development
before July 1, 1973. According to the information sub-
mitted by the applicants, the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners adopted the rezoning ordinance for
the entire project and approved the plats, which were
then recorded with the Florida Division of Land Sales
pursuant to Chapter '498, F.S., as follows:
Unit
jib of Lots
Platting
Registration
1
3,089
6/6/67
9/6/68
2
907
6/6/67
9/6/68
3
2,212
1/6/70
1/9/70
4
898
2/20/68
2/7/69
5
652
2/20/68
2/7/69
6
312
8/20/68
2/7/69
7
888
8/20/68
2/7/69
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 12 of 26
Ms. Tasha Buford
April 8, 1986
Page Six
The applicants submitted certified copies of the minutes
of the June 6, 1967 meeting and the cover page -of each
approved plat. Therefore, the Department finds that
Units 1 and 2 were platted and authorized prior to
August 1, 1967 and Units 3 -7 were authorized between
August 1, 1967, and July 1, 1973. Furthermore, the
Department finds that the entire project had received
authorization to commence construction of 11,926 units
and 185 acres of commercial facilities prior to July 1,
1973.
The applicants claim that GAC acted in reliance on
the rezoning and plat approval by the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners for Units 1 and 2 and
changed its position by commencing construction of a
substantial portion of the project, and by execution
of a Bonding Agreement, a Corporation Bond and a Trust.
According to the application, by July 1, 1973, GAC had
spent $1,360,000 on.the entire project and more than
$950,000 on construction of Units 1 and 2, in addition,
GAC entered into a Bonding Agreement which pledged to
Collier County accounts receivable by GAC from lot pur-
chasers in order to secure the completion of works,
improvements, and other installations on the property.
The GAC executed a Corporate Bond to Collier County in
the amount of 1108 of the estimated cost of providing
pavement, drainage and other structural improvements.
GAC also delivered to Collier County, as Trustee, a
Warranty Deed conveying Sections 15, 21 and 22, Township
51 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, to
provide additional security for completion of the
required improvements, works and installations on the
property. This property has since been deeded to the
county. Finally, the applicant submitted an April 1973,
aerial photograph, showing that land clearing, road and
canal work had commenced as of that date.
The Department finds that the applicants have noti-
fied the Department of their claim of vested rights
pursuant to Paragraph 380.06(20)(a), F.S. and have ade-
quate documentation that plats for Units 3 -7 were
approved between August 1, 1967 and July 1, 1973.
The Department also finds that, based on the repre-
sentations made by the applicants and the documentation
of expenditures and commitments for construction.of the
project in the application, the applicants have shown
substantial reliance and change of position in regard to
Units 1 and 2 of the project.
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 13 of 26
Ms. Tasha Buford
April 81 1986
Page Seven
6. Pursuant to Paragraph 380.06(4)(e), F.S. (19851, in
determining whether a proposed substantial change to a develop-
ment of regional impact (DRI) concerning which rights had been
previously vested would divest such rights, the state land plan-
ning agency shall review the proposed change within the context
of:
A. Criteria specified in Paragraph 380.06(19)(b), F.S.
(1985);
B. Its conformance with any adopted state comprehensive
plan and any rules of the state land planning agency;
C. All rights and obligations arising out of the vested
status of such development;
D. Permit conditions or requirements imposed by the Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation, the Department of
Natural Resources, or any water management district
created by Section 373.069, F.S., or any of their suc-
cessor agencies or by any appropriate federal regulatory
agency; and
E. Any regional impacts arising from the proposed change.
7. Furthermore, pursuant to Paragraph 380.06(4)(f), F.S.,
if a proposed substantial change to a DRI concerning which rights
had previously vested pursuant to Subsection 380.06(20), F.S.,
would result in reduced regional impacts, the change shall not
divest rights to complete the development pursuant to Subsection
380.06(20), F.S.
B. The proposed changes to the project are as follows:
1973 1986 Net Chang"
Residential (acres) 1,505.5 826 - 679.5
Residential (units) 11,926 2,100 - 9,826
Commercial (acres) 185.2 22 - 163.2
Industrial (acres) 72.7 -0- - 72.7
Lakes 6 Canal (acres) 160.0 185 + 25.0
Right -of -Way (acres) 499.6 70 - 429.6
Agricultural (acres) -0- 1,600 + 1,600
Community Use (school, 201.3 95 - 106.3
park, utility) (acres)
Golf Course (acres) 173.7 -0- - 173.7
TOTAL 2,798.0 2,798.0 -0-
Item # 16A1
September 23,
Page 14 of 26
Ms. Tasha Buford
April 8, 1986
Page Eight
9. In determining whether the changes to the vested devel-
opment plan would be substantial, the Department applied the
criteria in Subparagraphs 380.06(19)(b) 9., 9., 10., 13., 15. and
16., F.S. These criteria are as follows:
N. An increase in industrial development area by 5 percent
of 32 acres, whichever is greater.
9. An increase in the number of dwelling units by five
percent, or 50 dwelling units, whichever is greater.
10. An increase in commercial development by 6 acres of
land area, or by 50,000 square feet of gross floor
area, or of parking spaces provided for customers for
300 cars or 5 percent, whichever is greater.
13. A decrease in the area set aside for open space of 5
percent or 20 acres, whichever is less.
15. A 15 percent increase in the number of external vehicle
trips generated by.the development...
16. A change proposed for 15 percent or more of the
agreage... to a land use not previously approved..."
As shown above, there will be a decrease in the industrial
area, the number of dwelling units and the commercial areas, and
an increase in the area set aside for open space (lakes and
agriculture). The vested commercial areas, included in the Unit
1 -3, 6 and 7 plat approvals, contained 185 acres, and an unknown
amount of square feet and parking. The Department finds that far
more square footage and parking could have been built on 185
acres than is currently proposed on 22 acres.
The applicants estimated that the vested project would have
generated a total of 280,606 external daily vehicle trips. The
currently proposed project is estimated to generate a total of
24,835 external daily trips, for a decrease of 255,771 trips.
The Department finds that there will be a decrease in the number
of external vehicle trips generated by the development.
More than fifteen percent of the acreage has been changed to
agriculture, a land use not previously approved. However, the
Department finds that this modification does not increase
regional impacts.
M:
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 15 of 26
Ms. Tasha Buford
April 8, 1986
Page Nine
In comparing the potential regional impacts associated with
the vested plan and the proposed changes, the applicants esti-
mated the following:
1973
Sewage (MGD)
3.875
Water (MGD)
3.875
Solid Waste (lbs /day)
229,880
Energy (kwh)
18,632,480
Impervious Surface
1,370
(acres)
986 et Chance
0.627
- 3.248
0.627
-. 3.248
20,482
- 209,398
2,353,600
- 16,278,880
525.5
- 844.5
Therefore, the Department finds that the proposed project would
reduce regional impacts from the vested project.
On January 10, 1986, notice of this request for a Binding
Letter of Interpretation was published in the Florida Administra-
tive Weekly. in addition, the Southwest Florida Regional Plan-
ning Council and Collier County were notified.
•, , ,
1. The Department concludes that the applicants have met
the notification requirement of Paragraph 380.06(20)(a), Florida
Statutes and have adequate documentation that plats for Units 3 -7
were approved between August 1, 1967 and July 1, 1973. Unless
development of these properties has commenced by June 30, 1990,
the vested rights shall expire.
2. The Department also concludes that, based on the repre-
sentations made by the applicants and the documentation of expen-
ditures and commitments for construction of the project in the
application, the applicants have shown substantial reliance and
change of position in regard to units 1 and 2 of the project.
3. Furthermore, the Department concludes that the proposed
North Golden Gate development, with 2,100 dwelling units on 828
acres, 22 acres of commercial use with 60,000 gross square feet,
and 1,600 acres of agriculture, will result in a substantial
decrease in the amount of development previously proposed in the
vested development plan. Furthermore, the modifications to the
vested plan will result in a reduction of regional impacts.
Therefore, pursuant to Paragraph 380.06(4)(f), Florida Statutes,
the Department concludes that the modifications do not divest any
rights the developer has acquired under Subsection 380.06(20),
Florida Statutes, to complete the development of North Golden
Gate.
Ms. Tasha Buford
April 8, 1986
Page Ten
RDER
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 16 of 26
The North Golden Gate development, as described above,
will not be required to comply with the review requirements of
Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. The modifications to the
vested plan will not divest your right to develop. As those
changes described in your application for this letter have been
approved by local government and incorporated into a new develop-
ment order, they constitute the vested plan of development for
North Golden Gate and must be followed by you. If any further
changes ate ,pr,oposed to this project, they should be submitted by
you to this agency so that they may be compared together with
their impacts to the plan now found to be vested in this letter.
Therefore, all future changes to this modified development plan
should be brought to the attention of this agency. Should any of
the above representations made by the applicant be substantially
changed, further review of the project may be required.
This binding letter of interpretation has been issued pur-
suant to the procedural requirements of Subsection 120.57(2),
Florida Statutes, and constitutes final agency action appealable
within 30 days to a District Court of Appeal pursuant to Section
120.68, Florida Statutes. If you wish to present oral or written
evidence, or a written statement in opposition to this agency
action, you must file with the Department a written request for
an opportunity to do so within 30 days from this date. Such a
request for a reconsideration shall be made in accordance with
Rule 9J -2.16, Florida Administrative Code, and will be responded
to by the Department pursuant to Paragraph 120.57(2)(a), Florida
Statutes.
This determination does not obviate the need to comply with
other applicable state or local permitting procedures. Any ques-
tions regarding this determination may be directed to Mike Donovan
in the Division of Resource Planning and Management, Bureau of
Resource Management at (904) 488 -4925.
Sincerely, n
.0.y �- +4�.�•C.�
Diana Sawaya -Cr ne
Chief, Bureau of
DSC /mdr Resource Management
cc: Mr. Dan Trescott FILING AND ACKNON•LEDGEM-7-ii
VNIs. Missy McKim FILED, on this dace, with the des.'u.r .
Ms. Susan COucghanour Dep nt C:erk rem of cn
Mr. Ron Blackburn
Mr. Charles Knight
C Jane R. Bass pate
.. Department Clerk
Item # 16A1
September2 2008''.
R
1
-
_
I I
I.
I
J
:
gig
j
I
W
I 1
! 5
I
A n • - R R n r y� Su' •.
are
I
17 r
E�
v,
i
Rim .
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008;
Page 18 of 26
2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
BOB GRAHAM February 28, 1986 TOM LEWIS, e ry
Gm¢mar ,�.
Ms. Tasha Buford
225 S. Adams St., Suite 200
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear Ms. Buford:
134St11_ Sa41d�o_ �s3t�i _I3b1Y�_2$ §= 4441_13LbM_2$�_44Z
We received your application for a Binding Letter of Inter-
pretation of Vested Rights for a Development and for a Binding
Letter of Interpretation of Modification to a Development of
Regional Impact with Vested Rights, and the notification of
Vested Rights Status pursuant to the new vested rights provisions
in Paragraph 380.06(20)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), for the
North Golden Gate development, on December 20, 1985. The infor-
mation in your application is sufficient and we will issue a
binding letter on or before April 4, 1986.
.If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter,
please call me in the Division of Resource Planning & Management,
Bureau of Resource Management at (904) 488 -4925.
Sincerely,
Mike Donovan
Planner IV
Development of Regional
Impact Section
MD /sr
cc: vis. Missy McKim
Mr. Dan Trescott
Mr. George Varnadoe
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS
Item # 16A1
September 23 2008
Page 19 of 261
2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
BOB GRAHAM February 28, 1986 TOM LEWIS, IIL
Gm m>r SCC.eb"
Ms. Missy McKim
Collier County Planning
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Government Complex
Naples, Florida 33942
Dear Missy:
Nuth Qs19?L3 9 @tea BUY9 =2$6 =4941 9L19 =2@§ =997
We have received an application for a Binding Letter of
Vested Rights and for Modification to a DRI with Vested Rights
for North Golden Gate in Collier County. We are reviewing the
application to determine whether the development is vested and
whether the proposed plan significantly increases the impacts of
the original plan on regional resources or facilities. We would
appreciate receiving your comments about the vested status of the
development and the impacts of the proposed project, no later
than March 21, 1986, so that we may consider them in our deter-
mination. Due to statutory deadlines, comments received later
than the due date may not be included in the binding letter.
You should have received a copy of the application from the ap-
plicant. Any pertinent additional information received by the
Bureau will be sent to you. Please send a copy of your comments
to the applicant, Ms. Tasha Buford, 225 S. .Adams St., Suite 200,
Tallahassee, Florida, 32301.
If you have any questions about this request, or are unable
to meet the deadline, please call me in the Division of Resource
Planning and Management, Bureau of Resource Management at (904)
488 -4925 or SUNCOM 278 -4925.
Sincerely,
Mike Donovan
Planner IV
Development of Regional 3
Impact Section
MD /sr
M
cc: Ms. Tasha Buford
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMU14ITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
YOUNG, VAN AssENDERP, VARNADOE & BENTON, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RI!HANp E. 9ENTON
TASHA O. BUFORD
DAv1D L.COoK
CLAIRE A. DUGHENIN
.I. WAYHE FALBEY
G. DONALD THo.5.N
KEN VAN AssENDERP
GEORGE L. VARNAOOE
Roy C.Youmo
March 5, 1986
Burt Saunders
Collier County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 33962
In re: North Golden.Gate
Dear Burt:
Item # 16A1
September 2J, 2008
Page 20 of 2
GALLICS HALL
REPLY TO! 225 SOUTH ADAMS STREET, SUITE 200
POST OFFICE Box Ia33
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 -1833
Naples TELEPHONE (90.) 222 -7208
SUN BANX BUILDING
801 LAUR[L OAR DRNE
Sm7E 300
POSr OFFICE BOX 7901'
NARLES, FLORIDA 339.1 -7907
TELEPHONE (813) 597 -2819
On or about February 28, 1986, the Department of Community Affairs
wrote a letter addressed to Missy McKim asking for comments from
the County regarding the vested status of the North Golden Gate
development and the impacts for. the proposed project.
I would like to remind you that in the Settlement and Zoning
Agreement between GAC Liquidating Trust, Amnon Golan as Trustee,
and Collier County, the County agreed that the project is vested
for the purposes of the Chapter 380 and further agreed to cooper-
ate in. obtaining the Binding Letter of Vested Rights (and.modifi-
cation thereof) in accordance with the approved plan. If this
firm can be of any assistance in helping you prepare a response,
we would be glad to do so.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
7
i
George L. Varnadoe
GLV /jr
cc: David Pettrow
Missy McKim.,
Amnon Golan
David Friedman
'r
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 21 of 26
17,-V:M�
MAN 31 1986
AFFAIRS
DgIPLAN
2371 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE; EAST • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
BOB GRAHAM
Gwemer
Ms. Tasha Buford
Suite 200
225 S. Adams Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear Ms. Buford:
March 25, 1986 TOM LE S—Lay
�
North Golden Gate: BLIVR- 986 -004; BLIM- 986 -007
During our review of your applications for Binding Letters
of Interpretation for North Golden Gate we obtained comments on
your application from Collier County. A copy of this letter is
enclosed for your information. A copy of this letter should also
have been sent to you by Collier County.
We are now considering these written comments as part of our
evaluation of your binding letter application. We would appreci-
ate receiving any response you wish to make regarding these com-
ments by April 2, 1986.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter,
please call me in the Division of Resource Planning and Manage-
ment, Bureau of Resource Management at 488 -4925.
Sincerely,
Mike Donovan
Planner IV
Development of Regional
Impact Section
MD /sr
Enclosure
cc: J Ms. Missy McKim
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PUNNING AND MANAGEMENT
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 22 of 26
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
4980 Bayline Drive, 4th Floor. N. Ft }Ivers; Fl, 33917 -3909 (941) 656.7720
P.O. Box 3455. N. Ft Myers. FL 33918 -3455 SUNCOJf 749 -7720
F4X 941 - 656 -7724
September 23, 2002
Mr. Richard Joudrey, E.I.
Davidson Engineering, Inc.
2154 Trade Center Way, Suite #3
Naples, Florida 34109
Dear Richard:
We have reviewed your request in a September 10, 2002 letter for an increase in development
within the Orange Tree Planned Unit Development (PUD). You propose to increase the
residential units by 1,900 (total 4,000) and the o1mmerciai square footage by 280,000 (total
340,000 square feet). As you know the Orange Tree PUD is a previously vested Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) known originally as the North Golden Gate project (VRS- 986 -074,
BLIVR- 986 -004 and BLIVR- 986 -007). The four square mile vested DRI is within the
settlement area of the Gold Gate Area Future Land Use Map in the Collier County
Comprehensive Plan and is allowed to continue development, consistent with the PUD. The
current vested land uses within the most recent Orange Tree PUD amendment as of January 21,
1991 are listed below.
Residential Units
2,100
Commercial Sq.ft.
60,000
Right -of -way (acres)
149.8
Agricultural (acres)
1,098
Community Use (acres)
86
Golf Course (acres)
200
School /Park (acres)
36
Utility (acres)
15
Lake (acres)
420
Our determination as to whether the Orange Tree PUD is now a DRI with the proposed new
development is based only on the new residential units and commercial square feet. All other
uses are not subject to DRI review including acres of commercial development per the 2002
legislative changes in Chapter 380.0651. Therefore, because the 2,100 units and 60,000 square
feet of commercial are considered vested only the 1,900 units and the 280,000 square feet of
Item # 16AII
September 23, 2008
Page 23 of 26
commercial is calculated for potential DRI consideration. The calculations for the DRI
determination are below.
1,900 units / 2,000 units (Collier threshold) = 95%
280,000 sq.ft. / 400,000 sq.ft (statewide retail threshold) = 70%
95% residential threshold plus 70 % commercial threshold = 165%
This total combined DRI mixed -use threshold is 165 %, which is presumed to be a DRI for a two
or more land used DRI because it is between 145% and 174 %. However, based on notifying you
of this conclusion you requested in a phone conversation on this same date to reduce the
residential units to 1,650 and the commercial to 249,000 square feet. The calculations for this
DRI determination are below.
1,650 units / 2,000 units (Collier threshold) = 82.5%
249,000 sq.ft. / 400,000 sq.ft (statewide retail threshold) = 62.390
82.5% residential threshold plus 62.3% commercial threshold = 144.8%
144.8% / 145% = 99.9 io of the DRI threshold for a two or more land use project
Therefore, in accordance with Chapter 380.06(2)(d)l.a. "a development that is below 100
unaergo aevetopment- or- regional - Impact review ". Finally, as long as the proposed residential
and commercial development is at or below the uses listed immediately above the Orange Tree
PUD additional uses will not be required to undergo DRI review. If you have any questions,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
SOUTHWE FLORIDA F REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
Daniel L. Trescott
Principal Planner /DRI Coordinator
cc: David Weeks, Planner, Collier County Development Services
Bernard Piawah, DCA/BLP
-- — Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008,
Page 24 of 26
Agenda Item No. 6A-
November16,2004
Page 2 of 77
GROWTH MANAGEA'NTIMPACT•
The Settlement Area District allows land uses "vested" in 1986; these include 2,100 dwelling units and
22 acres/60,000 square feet (plus hoteVmotel use) of commercial development. The District identifies
the types of uses allowed in the Orangetree PUD — residential, commercial, community uses, etc. The
acreage reduction will increase the density from .76 units per acre to .98 units per acre, however the
approved maximum number of dwelling units of 2,100 will not change and therefore, the proposed
amendment does not increase the vested number of dwelling units or commercial land uses. Based
upon the above analysis, staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment may be deemed
consistent with the Rural Settlement Area District in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GOAMP).
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES,
The Environmental staff has reviewed the petitioner's application and has waived the requirement for
the petitioner to submit an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because this petition only reflect the
removal of 616 acres from the Orangetree PUD.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EA RECOMMENDATION
Because no EIS was required, this petition was not required to go to the EAC.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (CCPCI:
The CCPC reviewed this petition during their public hearing on October 7, 2004. A motion by
Commissioner Strain to forward petition PUDA -03 -AR -4227 to the BCC with a recommendation of
approval was accepted by a vote of 8 to 0 subject to staff stipulations as contained in the PUD
Document. The Planning Commissioners recommending approval found this petition to be consistent
with the GNP and compatible with the surrounding land uses. Because one person spoke in opposition
to this petition, this petition could not be placed on the summary agenda.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Petition PUDA -03 -AR -4227 subject to the modifications of the PUD
Property boundary and legal description incorporated into the PUD Document as otherwise described
by the amending Ordinance included in this Executive Summary,
PREPARED BY:
Raymond V. Bellows, Manager
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
PUDA -03 -AR -4227, Orangetree PUD
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 25 of 26
From: Dan Trescott [dtrescott@swfrpc.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 11:18 AM
To: tim @davidsonengineering.com
Cc: Bemard.Piawah @dca.state.fl.us; DeselemKay; Jason Utley
Subject: Orange Tree PUD
Tim:
Regarding your letter of April 11, 2007 on whether the PUD is a DRI you need to seek your
answer from DCA. We do not make DRI Determinations, particularly on projects that have BIVR
changes. Contact Bernard at DCA (email included) to seek further guidance.
Thanks
Daniel L. Trescott, Principal Planner
DRI /Hurricane /Sea Level Rise Planning
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
1926 Victoria Ave.
Fort Myers, FL 33901
Office: 239.338.2550 Ext. 220
Fax: 239.338.2560
Suncom 748.2550 EM. 220
email: dtrescott (o)swfrpc.org
Web: http: / /www.swfrpc.org
Item # 16A1
September 23, 2008
Page 26 of 26
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
CHARLIE CRIST
Gc+emor THOMAS G. PELHAM
Sec 'cry
December 20, 2007
Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire
GrayRobinson, P.A.
301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400
P.O. Box 3068 (32802 -3068)
Orlando, Florida 32801
Re: Request for Clearance Letter, Orangetree PUD, Collier County, Florida
DCA No: CL-09- 2007 -051
Dear Mr. Cloud:
The Department has evaluated your request for a clearance letter in order to permit the addition of
1,250 residential units and 272,000 square feet of commercial uses to the Orangetree Planned Unit
Development, located in Collier County Florida. This project was issued a vested rights letter in 1986.
Pursuant to Rule 9J- 2.015, Florida Administrative Code, the Department is author zed to issue clearance
letters in order to respond to inquiries when the answer is clear regarding the development of regional
impact status of a project. However, in this case, the applicant is requesting to modify the footprint of a
project with vested rights in order to permit more development. When that is the case the appropriate
Procedure to follow is the application for a Binding Letter of Modification to a development of Regional
Impact with Vested Rights.
In view of this circumstance, the Department is recommending that the applicant submit a request
to modify the Vested Rights Letter of 1986 following the procedures established in Chapter 380.06(4),
Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J- 2.016, Florida Administrative Code. If you have any question on this
—matter, please, do not hesitate to call Bernard O. Piawah, Interim Regional Planning Administrator, at
850- 922 -1810.
Sincerely,
Mike McDanial, Chief
Office Comprehensive Planning
MM/hp
RECEIVED
cc: Mr. Daniel Trescott, DRI Coordinator, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
DEL 200f
Ms. Kay DeDalcm, AICP. Principal Planner, Collier County Department of Zoning 77�� C
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, EL 32399.21(iV'RlI�u DEPART "vtLl� -�
''r��ne. 350- 468- 84p6 /S,J.%LOM 278 -07 6 Fn x. y�0 -92I O'9115;INC�iM 211-0771
'7 J;il9: :v r. v ;1 •- -� L;�
OMMUNIN PLANNING
AREAS Of CRITICAL SlAiE CONCERN NED ORICE
HOUSMGAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT