Agenda 09/09-10/2008 Item # 8D
,OD'
, <
<-/
q/q!of!.,
{XiI
<.,,~ ~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUDA-2007-AR-11734, KRG 951 and 41, LLC, represented by Q. Grady Minor, is
requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to the Artesa Pointe PUD to
remove a 0.88-acre parcel of land and add it to the proposed Tamiami Crossing
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) abutting its northern boundary. The 0.88-
acre subject property is located approximately one-quarter of a mile south of the
intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the Tamiami Trail (US 41), in Section 3,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida
COMPANION ITEM: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an amendment to the Artesa Pointe
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to revise the legal description and Master Plan boundaries to
reflect that the subject 0.88-acre parcel of land is being added to the proposed Tamiami Crossing
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD); and to make certain that the project is in
harmony with the applicable County codes and regulations to maintain the community's interests.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant proposes to amend the Artesa Pointe PUD, approved on September 23, 2003, to
remove 0.88 acres from its extreme northwestern corner, as depicted on the Conceptual Master
Plan contained in the staff report. This 0.88 acres, permitted for commercial uses on the
approved Master Plan, is to be added to the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD to provide
additional parking capacity. The subject amendment would require only minor revisions to the
approved Artesa Pointe PUD document and Master Plan to reflect the deletion of this acreage
from the PUD's northwestern boundary; therefore no other changes to either document are
proposed. All changes to the PUD document are shown in strike-through and underline format in
the proposed ordinance attached to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The rezoning action, in and of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no
guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development;
however, if the CPUD is approved, a portion of the existing land will be developed and the new
development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities.
The County collects all applicable impact fees before the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impacts of each new development on its public facilities. These impact fees are used to
fund projects identified in the Growth Management Plan's (GMP) Capital Improvement Element
(CIE) as needed to maintain adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally,
in order to meet the requirements of Section 10.02.07(C) of the Land Development Code, fifty
percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project are required to be
paid simultaneously with the approval of each final local development order. Other fees collected
Page 1 of 5
PD
~/ /
C; I t:-l LA::,
(~"-,,.r')
',..ll, '__
r
before the issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees
associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system.
Please note that the inclusion of impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes
only; they are not included in the criteria used by Staff and the Planning Commission to analyze
this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMP ACT:
Artesa Pointe PUD presently comprises all of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict on the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The primary intent of this subdistrict is to provide for a mixture
of regional commercial uses and residential development to serve the South Naples, Royal
Fakapalm and Marco Island areas. The subject 0.88 acres is within a commercial component of
the Artesa Pointe PUD, and its annexation into the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD would be
compatible with respect to its current land use. However, as the Henderson Creek Subdistrict is
limited to a maximum of325,000 square feet of commercial uses, if the 0.88 acres were removed
from the PUD, it would still remain within the Hcnderson Creek Subdistrict and, therefore, no
commercial development would be eligible on it.
Conclusion:
The proposed PUD amendment has no impact on consistency as it relates to the GMP, as all uses
associated with the subject parcel will remain consistent with the aforementioned designation.
The subject PUD amendment may, therefore, be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) of the GMP.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMP ACT:
Approval of this PUDA to remove an 0.88-acre parcel from its boundaries would have no
affordable housing impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and determined that there are no
environmental issues associated with it.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
This petition was not heard by the EAC.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) heard this petition at their March 20, 2008
meeting, and voted 8-0 to forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval.
As this item received a unanimous recommendation and staff has not received any letters of
objection from the community, it is being placed on the summary agenda with its companion
item.
Page 2 of 5
8b
tt/q /06
P9'.3
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is an amendment to the existing Artesa Pointe PUD (Ordinance No. 03-46) which proposes
to amend the Statement of Compliance, Legal Description and Master Plan in order to reflect a
O.88-acre reduction of land in the PUD. This proposed amendment is quasi-judicial in nature. As
such the burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is
consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the BCC, should it
consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be
accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria.
Criteria for PUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for
approval or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development
proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements,
contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
after consultation with the County Attorney
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of
the Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: The intemal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions
may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of
assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and
private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to
accommodate expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are
justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
Page 3 015
8D
(1/e1/()b
P9LI
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriatc considering the existing land LIse
pattern ?
II. Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to
an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used In
accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site
alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range
of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
Page 4 of 5
e,)
cl ,
ct let 10,5
/JL,I_} t'_
j ,--)
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone on
the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of
service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch.l06, article 1I], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that
the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare?
The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the
written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive
Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the
Board of County Commissioners hearing as these materials relate to these criteria.
This item is legally sufficient for Board action. --MMSS
RECOMMENDA nON:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve PUDA-2007-AR-11734.
PREPARED BY:
John-David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
Page 5 of 5
p'D'
<.._1
CJ/c1/O,B
e~f ~?
At the petitioner's ,equest, this item is continued from the July 22, 2008 BCC meeting and is
furthe, continued to the September 9, 2008 BCC meeting. This item must be hea,d BEFORE item
PUDZ.2006-AR-l0875 and ,equi,es that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. PUDA-2007.AR-11734 KRG 951 and 41, LLC, ,epresented by
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard O. Yovanovich,
Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., is requesting an amendment to the Artesa
Pointe PUD to remove a +/- 0.88 acre parcel of land and add it to the proposed Tamiami Crossing
CPUD abutting its northern boundary. The subject p'operty is located approximately 1/4 of a mile
south of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and US 41, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range
26 East of Collie' County, Florida (Companion item to PUDZ-2006-AR.l0875).
Prepared By:
Department
Zoning and Land Development Review
Date
8/27/20086:53:51 AM
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
County Attorney Approved
8/28/2008 1 :00 PM
Approved By:
Department
Approval
App,oved
Date
CDES
8/28/2008 1:47 PM
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
Offieeof
Management
and Budget
Approved
8/28/2008 4:27 PM
App,oved By:
Department
App,oval
Date
County
Approved
Manager's Office
8/28/20087:34 PM
ATTACHMENTS:
Name
CI Final EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY ArtesB_doc
CI artesB staf:lQQf
Description
Type
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Staff Report
Staff Report
[) 2!iE.QWf
[) (Lrd a.r:tJ';l_~,pr;if
Application
Oi)
(.)1"
0' J r
~tllC::i,O,b4
ej I
Application
Ordinance
Ordinance
.
g,1), , '
L1/L " I,.. Q
!/Uc,
AGENDA ITEM 9-D . F~7 C)
,
cll1m.:r County
~ - ~ 1>....
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
HEAlUNG DATE: MARCH 20, 2008
SUBJECT: PETITION NO: PUDA-2007-AR-11734, ARTESA POINTE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
COMPANION ITEMS: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875 AND CPSS-06-01
APPLICANT:
KRG 951 AND 41, LLC
30 S. Meridian Street, Suite 1100
Indianapolis, IN 46204
AGENTS:
Mr. Wayne Arnold, AICP
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
3800 Via del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire,
Ooodlette, Coleman, and Jolmson, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
REOUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting an amelldment to the Allesa Polnte l'lanned Unit Development (PUD)
to remove a +/- 0.88 acre parcel of land and add it to the proposed Tamialni Crossing Commercial
Planned Unit Development (CPUD) abutting Its northern boundary. (The Tamiami Crossing
CPUD application is companion item PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875; and the companion Small Scale
Comprehensive Pleuming Ammendment is CPSS-06-0 I.)
GEOGRAPFlIC LOCA nON:
The :l:82-acre subject property is located approximately 1/4 of a mile south of the intersection of
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the Tamiami Trail (US 41), in Section 3, Township 51 South,
Range 26 East ofeollier County, Florida (see the location map on following page).
M... Point. PUDA-2007-AR-11734
Motoh 20. 2008 CCPC
Pogo, 015
B D t:ifci II) 8
e3c; .'
...
'"
Ih.WH ...
~
i ~
3 '"
<(
0
0
'"
,
<(
~Ql.lll11 / I- e
- ::l
..
..
. ~
. . , , ;:
i w
..
~ . jl . - I
I ll.
<(
I I :E
I "IlK . Z
0
,."" -
I-
~ I l <(
. a I . (,)
0
...J
. .
,
~
"" iI
,
, "
, "
'..
s
"I
i I
ll.
<(
:E
(!)
Z
-
Z
o
N
.
,
If.
(If.:
" .
". . .
I . .
, , . t
.t:" " .' l
I I I.
. . .
. . .
. . . I
........
i',',',',
. .,.
I. . . ,
r ...
. . . I I
',',',',
1.,....'.
l'....'..
',',',',
I,. . .
, . , ,
r . I .
I I I I
','.',',
..'.....
.. II"~
," ,
I~~
~;I
i~1
~~12
ULB
c. ') OJ' (liOE
. Ji" 1
l..J 'X'~
'.7"',
I'J iV
...._""..........w........,.."'...
.............. III
Ill"
q
I
i
,
,
1
I
I
i
I
I ~
! ~~
! ~~
i .:;)
" ~..
g . ,
!9 L->
""'<~i !
If I
=' .... ~
'" ,
in I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
in (
i
..,...."...".....,........,
"
,.......,."'......
~
,,~
5~
~m
~~ ","
'-y.'
/
l
[
o
w
~
i!l
"
-
c....
~
~
"
~
~
..
~
~
~
'"
"
5
"-
III
~
~
~
<
~
~
8
<:i f
Po t
~ II (
~I 1.1
~Ii! II
"'! "
~5' II
""11' !
~I l
"I .
cJol I
I
I
CO') ('II, /. a
C_:J L. / l~lICL.>
r?3 i I
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The purpose of this petition is to anlend the Artesa Poiute PUD, approved on September 23, 2003,
to remove 0.88 acres from its extreme northwestern corner, as depicted on the Conceptual Mastel'
Plan on the preceding page. This 0.88 acres, permitted for commercial uses on the approved
Master Plan, is to be added to the proposed Tamiaml Crossing CPUD to provide additional parking
capacity. As the subject amendment would only require minor revisions to the approved Artesa
Pointe PUD document and Mastel' Plan to reflect the deletion of this acreage from the PUD's
northwestel1l boundary, no other changes to either document are proposed, All changes to the PUD
document are shown in strike-through and underline format in the proposed ordinance attached to
this report.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
South:
West:
Vacant land (proposed for the Tamiaml Crossing CPUD), zoned C-4 (General
Commercial)
Vacant land (proposed for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD), zoned A; US 41 then
vacant land, zoned A (Rural Agricultural)
Holiday Manor mobile home park, zoned MH (Moblle Home)
Collier Boulevard; then golf course, zoned Eagle Crcck PUD
North:
East:
AERIAL VIEW
Art... polnl. PlJDA.2007-AR-11734
March 20, 2008 COPO
Page 2 Df5
PI"
,,--' ../
(Iji.i/ob
P"i /')
."_\::1 ,t7"
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Artesa Pointe PUD presently comprises all of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict on the
Future Land Use Map (PLUM), The pl'imary intent of this subdistrict is to provide for a mixture of
regional commercial uses and residential development to serve the South Naples, Royal Fakapal1n
and Marco Island areas. The subject 0.88 acres is within a commercial component of the Artesa
Pointe PUD, and its annexation into the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD would be compatible
with respect to its cuu'ent land use. However, as the Henderson Creek Subdistl'ict is limited to a
maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial uses, if the 0.88 acres were removed from the
PUD, it would stili remain within the Henderson Creek Subdistrict and, therefore, no commercial
development would be eligible on it.
Conclusion:
The proposed PUD amendment has no impact on consistency as it relates to the GMP, as all uses
associated with the subject parcel will remain consistent with the aforementioned designation. The
subject PUD amendment may, therefore, be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) ofthe GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the LDC criteria
upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13.B.5. and
10.03.05.H, which establish factual bases to support a recommendation. The Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in tllln use the criteria to SUppolt their action on
the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as separate documents, and have been
attached to the staff report as Exhibits A and B. In addition to these documents, staff offers the
following analysis:
Environmental Review: Environmental Sel'vices staff has reviewed this petition and determined
that there are no environmental issues associated with it.
Transportation Planning Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed this project, and
there are no outstanding transp0l1ation issues.
Utilities Review: This project is located within the Collier County Water and Sewer District. The
proposed amendment does not impact the utilities provision, which is the same as for the existing
PUD.
Emergency Management Review: The Artesa Pointe PUD is located in a Category I Hurricane
Surge Zone which requires evacuation during some hurricane events. Because this is a conunercial
PUDA, the Emergency Management Department has no issues with the approval of this petition.
Zoning Review: As noted in the preceding GMP Consistency review, the subject parcel is located
in the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, which permits a maximum commercial gross floor
area of 325,000 square feet. As the boundaries of the Altesa Pointe PUD are coterminous with this
subdistrict, and the PUD has already been approved for 325,000 square feet of commercial uses,
Artooo Polnto PUOA-20D7-AR-11734
Moroh 20, 2008 CCPC
Pogo 3 of 6
P: ;" GJ/'Cllo ,,~,
I../f.~" I C,
"J '2
(".', f-)
'_._ 1".__...
the subject 0.88 acres would not be eligible for any of the commercial development proposed with
the companion Tanliami Crossing CPUD. Instead, this acreage would only be permitted to be used
for parking, as shown on the Tamiami Crossing Mastel' Plan by Q. Grady Minor and Associates,
P.A., dated July 2006, as revised through October 2007, submitted with companion PUDZ-AR-
2006-10875, and included as Exhibit C of this report. As the subject parcells adjacent to areas
proposed for parking and preservation, no compatibility issues are anticipated.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
(Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator)
The applicant duly noticed and held the NIM for Artesa Pointe (PUDA-2007-AR-11734),
Tamiami Crossing (PUDZ-2006-AR-1 087 5), and the associated Comprehensive Planning
Amendment (CPSS-06-1) as companion items on September 26, 2007, at Manatee Elementary
School. Approximately 70 people attended, some of whom identified themselves as residents of
Eagle Creek. Also present were County staff, County Commissioner Donna Fiala, Planning
Commissioner Bob Murray, the applicant and his agents.
Most of the questions posed by attendees focused on traffic impacts and the County Transportation
Divisions' plans for area road improvements. The applicant told the audience that a signal on US-
41 between the site and one quarter mile from the Habitat for Humanity project would be sought,
with an alternate location fUlther east, subject to approval of the Florida Depaltment of
Transportation (FDOT). The applicant's team stated that there were plans for access points on CR
951 and US 41, and two interconnection points with Artesa Pointe PUD.
Attendees were interested in finding out if there was a big box retailer like Super,Target proposed.
Eric Strickland of Kite Development responded that a box retail or grocery store was proposed,
and that his firm is indeed a Target developer. He also stated that the project's projected opening
was for late 2008. The agent added that the proposed zoning was primarily for C-4 (General
Conunerclal) uses, and that a garden center was also a potential end-user. A commitment was
made by members oCthe applicant's team that there would be no tattoo parlor.
The Developer's agent, Richard Yovanovich, stated that the applicant's team was willing to speak
with any Homeowners' Associatiol\s that were interested in meeting with them. He also told the
group that these items would not be on the summary agenda if there were any objections from the
neighbors (since attendees felt that the Wal-Mart in Artesa Pointe had been approved without
adequate notification of the public hellling date). Mr. Yovanovich then advised the audience to file
any objections to the proposals with the County's Pllllming staff.
The NIM officially ended at approximately 6:30 p.m. Transportation PI aIming Director Nick
Casalanguida said he and the applicant's team would remain after the meeting to discuss developer
contribution agreements and impl'Ovements of the Collier Boulevard/US-41 intel'Section.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier COUl\ty Planning
Commission forward Petition PUDA-2007-AR-11734 to the Board of County Commissioners with
a recommendation of approval.
Me.. Point. PlJOA.2007-AR.11734
March 20, 2008 CCPC
Page 4 of 6
/' ',," ( ,;11;/' ,-, ,Q
V "'I ."/ t.'"f f__Cj
C' L~/
e'J ILl
PREPARED BY:
~/ ~y Chv-
JO -DAVID SS, AlCP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
J-~"'~ / 0 (
ATB
REVIEWED BY:
~~~.'~~'D~;~
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
/l~~~ 1,!"-"l,;,~-
'RA YM D . BE LOWS, MANAGER ' ' ATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
2..-28 - 08
DATE
xf~~.~v~
-"'SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
<il /a. 9/& J>
DATE
APPROVED BY:
L5/~'
< H K. SCI-lMI , ADMINISTRATOR
UNITY DEVELOPMENT &
IRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled fOl' the May 27, 2008 Board of County Conunissioners Meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARKP. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Exhibits: A. Rezone Findings
B. PUD Findings ,
C. Tamiami Crossing CPUD Master Plan
AIIo.s Points PUDA.2001-A~-11134
Msrcll 20, 2006 CCPC
Pso. 6 of 5
o :'-,
.: ; L."J
.<>~ (:1 i,".' . '--Ie
-f /C.' ljc-' c;
f')' I r.
I_c) i~)
EXHIBIT A
REZONE FINDINGS
PETITION PUDA-2006-AR-11734
Artesa Pointe pun
Chapter 10.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall
show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation
to the following, where appllcable:
1. Whether the l)rOposed change will be consistent with the goals, objedives, & policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Findine;s: Page three of the staff report explains how this petition is consistent with the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Growth Managemellt Plan (GMP). As stated, the
subject property is designated Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, and the primary
intent of the subdistrict is to provide for a mixture of regional commercial uses and
residential development to serve the South Naples, Royal Fakapalm and Marco Island
areas. As the Henderson Creek Subdistrict is limited to a maximum of 325,000 square
feet of commercial, which is already built, the 0.88 acres would not be ellgible for
development on it. No development is proposed for the site; therefore, the project is
consistent with the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Findings: The subject site is bordered by the C-4 zoning district to the north and west
and by the Artesa Pointe PUD, which permits commercial uses consistent with the C-I
tlu'ough C-5 zoning districts, to the east and south. None of the abutting parcels have
been cleared.
3. The possible creation of all isolated distl'ict unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts;
Findll1l!s: Because the 0.88 acres of the proposed PUD amendment is part of an existing
mixed-use PUD, it would not create an isolated district. As noted above, the subject site
is already surrounded by propelty with similar land uses. For these reasons, the
amendment request would llot create an isolated district relative to the adjacent ones.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn In relatioll to existing
conditions 011 the property proposed for change^
Findinl/;s: The existing boundaries of the subject 0.88 acres are not irregula1'ly drawn;
however, the PUD into which it is proposed for inclusion Is indeed irregular in relation to
the majol'ity of parcels in the County, which are typically rectangular, The subject
properly was created by the developer's assemblage of available parcels in the area,
which resulted in a rather unusual shape for the proposed PUD. The location map on page
two of the staff report highlights the boundary of the subject parcel.
Poge I 00
,~ I) (iIC/'j .') q
l..-' .- , L..t.__
ell 1(;
EXHIBIT A
5^ Wllethel' changcd 01' changing conditions malte the passage of the proposed
amcndmcnt necessary.
Findings: The proposed PUDA is not obligatory at this location. However, the request is
reasonable because the propelty would remain part of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use
Subdistrict and, therefore, unavailable for any further commercial development othcr than
parking.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living' conditions In the
neighborhood;
Findinl!s: The removal of 0.88 acres from Artesa Pointe will not adversely affect the
living conditions in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed use for the property
would be similar to that already approved for the Artesa Pointe PUD.
7. Whether the proposed change will cI'cate or excessively increase traffic congestion
01' create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uscs, because
of peal. volumes 01' projected types of vehicular tmrfic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, 01' otherwise affect pnblic safety.
Findinw;: The exclusion of 0.88 acres from the Artesa Pointe will have any impact on
traffic.
8. Whethel' the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Findings: The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems, as
the existing water management system is designed to prevent drainage problems on the
site. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place to ensure review for
adequate drainage on the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD.
9. Whether the proposell change will setiously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
Findinl!s: The proposed change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties in
terms of llght and ail'.
10. Whether the pl'Oposed change will allversely affect propel'ty valucs in the adjacent
altes;
Findinl!s: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be
internal 01' external to the subject property. Propelty valuatlon is affected by a host of
factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may 01' may not affect values, since
value detelmhlation is driven by the market. There is no guarantee that the project will be
marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a detenent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Page 2 of3
/0!) {Ii LI'j DS
(x{ ! -1
EXHIBIT A
Findings: The adjacent properties allow similar uses. Therefore, the proposal would not
be a deterJ'ent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the p.'oposed change wlII constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
Flndinlls: As stated, the proposed amendment complies with the Henderson Creek Mixed
Use Subdistrict designation of the OMP. Furthermore, land use applications are subject to
a public heal'ing process to insure that they do not constitute a grant of special privileges
01' are inconsIstent with other prope11ies in the vicinity in which they are situated.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning;
Flndlnl!s: There are no substantial reasons why the property could not be used in
accordance with existing zoning.
14. Whether the change suggested Is out of scale with the needs of the ncighbOl'hood 01'
the County;
Findings: The proposed amendment conforms to the goals and objectives of the OMP
and is compatible with the surrounding property.
15. Whether is It Impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the lll'oposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
Findinl!s: Tl1el'e are many sites that are already zoned to accommodate the proposed
development; however this is not the determining factor when evaluating the
appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The proposed PUDA was reviewed and deemed
compliant with the GMP and the LDC, as was the Tamiami Cl'Ossing CPUD proposed In
conjunction with this petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site altel'ation, which
would be required to malte the prope.'ty usable for any of the range of potential uses
under the proposed zoning classification.
Findings: Any deveiopment would require some site alteration and the subject site will
have to cleared to execute the proposed parking lot.
17. The Impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities O.'dinance, as amended.
Findinlr5: The proposed pun petition will have no impact on public facilities or services.
Page 3 00
/' .... .
'--'/) c'./.
,"'1_ ,( () 1",9,
._J ! 'I,(,/!.-
ill> '0'
I"".., ,
.} I ,~;.;
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS FOR pun
PETITION PUDA-2006-AR-1l734
Al'tesa Pointe PUD
Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission
to make a finding as to the PUD Mastel' Plans' compliance with the following criteria:
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed In
relation to physical chal'Rctel'istics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Findinlls: The project is located within the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict on
the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The primary intent of this subdistrict is to provide for
a mixture of regional commercial uses and residential development to serve the South
Naples, Royal Fakapalm and Marco Island areas. The PUDA will not affect surrounding
areas. traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water or other utilities. However, it should be
noted that the development of the companion Tamiami Cl'Ossing CPUD will have to be in
accordance with all applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) and
Growth Management Plan (GMP) at the time of issuallce of any development order.
3. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of allY proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those pl'Oposed, particularly as
they'may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
opel'Rtion and maintenance of snch areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense.
Findin2s: Evidence of unified control was provided with the application. All
alTangements for the continuing operation and maintenance of the Artesa Pointe PUD
were made at the time of the original rezone and will not be affected by this PUDA.
4. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goalS, objectives
and policies of the GI'owth Management Plan (GMP).
Findin2s: The project as proposed is consistcnt with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
which designates the subject propelty as Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict. The
subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
GMP, as explained on page three of the staffreport.
5. The intel'l1al and extel'l1al compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restl'ictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening l'equirements.
FindIOl!S: Section 4.07.02 of the LDC has specific development requirements fol' PUD
districts to Insure that they are compatible with established or plalmed uses of the
surrounding neighborhoods. As noted in the staff repolt. the subject parcel is located in
the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, which permits a maximum commercial gross
Page 1 of2
'.
C)
(.)1,,/./ /'
C( (j L)C) _-..
I'):, '{. it!
-..J
EXHIBIT B
floor area of 325,000 square feet. As the boundaries of the Arlesa Pointe PUD are
coterminous with this subdistrict, and the PUD has already been approved for 325,000
square feet of commercial uses, the subject 0.88 acres would not be eligible for any fUlther
commercial development. Instead, this acreage would only be limited to parking arca,
which would be compatible with the surrounding uses.
6. The adequacy of usable open space areas In existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Findings: The minimum 30 percent open space requirement of the LDC, described in
section 2.14 of the PUD document, would still be met if this amendment were approved.
7. The timing or sequence of development for tile purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facillties, both publIc and private.
Findings: No capacity issues would be created by the approval of this petition.
8. The abillty of the subject property and of SUl'I'ounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
Findinl!s: As previously stated, no ftllther expansion is permitted on the Artesa Pointe
PUD.
9. Conformity with PUD regulations, 01' as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on detel'mlnation tbat such modifications
arc justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
Findings: Staff has reviewed this petition and found it to be consistent with the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) and all the elements of the OMP. Approval of the subject
PUDA wlll not have any impact on the existing Artesa Pointe PUD.
Page 2 of2
.J
,
"
,
I
,
i
,
I
i
i
"
I
I
i
,
i
I
i
i
i
I
81)
((IC) I",Q
L/C)
/"'('} ~") ;'.......
I':') 0--')
i
1;11;1;;8 iiil II d~l~
tiq~ J I" I II " I ~
I I~~ ~& 18 ill
1"IR!1 ~! B
II ~i il . ...
!: ~I I! ~~ Bi~
ill =& I___~:_ I ~I~ UiB
u~ ~II - " -
~;ii~~ ~<_ ~----=------
I --=
r iJ ~
c;>
"".
~
l;r'
..
1:1"
::;:
I
~
~
~
2
n
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
(i)
Pl.)).' .
d'.'/e..j 1 . '3
_.' l' ,.'
~j l/L->"C ~ ,.-
n~') I
(.;I-V'"
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE"
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
[ PUDA-2007-AR-11734 REV: 1
Projecl: 2002010019
Date: SIIlI07 DUE: 611\107
]
NAME OF APPLICANT (S) KRG 951 AND 41. LLC
ADDRESS 30 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET. SUITE 1100 CITY INDIANAPOLIS STATE IN ZIP 46204-3565
TELEPHONE # 317-809-6960 CELL # FAX # )17-577-5605
E-MAIL ADDRESS: ESTRICKLANDraJ.KITEREALTY.COM
NAME OF AGENT D. WAYNE ARNOLD. AICP - O. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES. PA
ADDRESS 3800 VIA DEL REY CITY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34134
TELEPHONE # 239-947-1144 CELL #
E-MAIL ADDRESS:WARNOLDraJ.GRADYMINOR.COM
FAX # 239-947-0375
NAME OF AGENT RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH. ESO. - GOODLETTE. COLEMAN AND JOI-INSON. P.A.
ADDRESS 4001 TAMIAMITRAIL. SUITE 300 CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34103
TELEPHONE # 239-435-3535 CELL #
E-MAIL ADDRESS: RYOVANOVICHraJ.GCJLAW.COM
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF
ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE
REGULATIONS.
FAX # 239-435-1218
Application For Public HCllrillg For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
.~[)
<........- -
Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide
additional sheets if necessary.
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
I."
a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the
entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an
ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional
sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Not Applicable
Applicatioll For Public I-learing For PUD Rezone 1118/07
,..0''-, I
'-"I) c.-.... ''OJ'.,_ C
.-."_/_ i!eA I')('~'
-- I ~-> .....-'
r)(; -;-;:7
~")C"'-..)
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and
stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
KRG 951 and 41. LLC
30 South Meridian Street. Suite 1100
Indianapolis. IN 46204-3565
100%
c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust
with the percentage of interest.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Not Applicable
d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the
name of the general and/or limited partners.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Not Applicable
Appliclltion For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone. 1/18/07
0")
(jl..
Ci/Ci/D8
rX:)t i
I "jG,
e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a
Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract
purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or
partners.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Not Applicable
Date of Contract:
f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, liSt all
individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust.
Name and Address
g. Date subject property acquired [8] 2007 ~ee-g Term of lease _
yrs./mos.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option:
Date option terminates: , or
Anticipated closing date
h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur
subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public
hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to
submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form.
Application For Public Heating For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
/:: c) ci jC1!L\ Co
/"t'~' -"'i C#'
,G-, -.,'0
j, :...)v
Detailed le2al description of the property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on
separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate
legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies
of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if
required to do so at the pre-application meeting.
NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions
arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be
required.
Section/Township/Range 2_/ 51 S / 26E
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #:
Metes & Bounds Description: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 3. TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00'41'50" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,361.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. 41 (STATE ROAD 90) (200 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY); THENCE RUN
NORTH 54'20'16" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 966.32 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF A 100 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 76 AT PAGES 127 THROUGH 129, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN SOUTH 20'16'12" WEST,
ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 203.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL
CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
WESTERLY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,799.93 FEET;
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09'43'48"; SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 474.91 FEET AT A BEARING OF
SOUTH 25'08'06" WEST, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 475.48 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THE SAME
BEING A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 3;
THENCE RUN NORTH 89'26'59" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR, A DISTANCE OF 2,833.22 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ISLE OF CAPRI ROAD (STATE ROAD 951) (RIGHT-OF-
WAY VARIES); THENCE RUN NORTH 02"28'03" EAST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF
1,284.83 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, RUN THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES
ALONG THE LINES OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2529 AT PAGES 1377 AND
1378 NORTH 90'00'00" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 02'28'03" EAST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT "C" OF TRAIL
RIDGE, AS DESCRIBED IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGES 71 THRU 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89'55'57" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT "C",
FOR A DISTANCE OF 196.99 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 00'04'03" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.05 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 89'55'57" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 683.32' FEET TO A POINT THAT IS A DISTANCE
OF 400.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF U.S. 41 (STATE ROAD 90) (200 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY); THENCE RUN SOUTH 54'20'16" EAST
FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,654.49 FEET: THENCE RUN NORTH 35'39'44" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. 41; THENCE RUN SOUTH 54'20'16"
EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 81.010 ACRES. MORE OR LESS.
Size of propertv:
ft. X
ft. = Total Sq. Ft.
Acres 81 +
AddresS/2enerallocatioll of subiect propertv: Subiect propeliY is located approximately 1/4 mile south of the
Intersection of Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 1/18107
PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): [g] Residential D Community Facilities
[g] Commercial D Industrial
c.;,I)r'
c."' tf/n/c...8
r):] J-Lc
Zoning
Land use
N A, C-2 & C-4
S MH
EA. MH & PUD
WPUD
Vacant (proposed Tamiami Crossina CPUDl
Residential Mobile Homes (Holiday Manor Coop)
Undeveloped, Residential Mobile Homes. Windina Cvpress DRI
Eaale Creek PUD. Residential
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject
property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space
is inadequate, attach on separate page).
Section/Township/Range ~/ SlS / 26E
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #: Property J.D. #: 00726724301 & 00725841007
Metes & Bounds Description: See attached Deeds
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
Crl
c..:J ,~
c1iCij Oc
r:::J :'--)--7
This application is requesting a rezone from the PUD zoning dlstrict(s) to the
CPUD zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property: Wal-Mart retail store. Habitat for Humanitv home sites and
oartiallv undevelooed orooosed commercial. retail.
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: The leqal descriotion and Master Plan are to
be revised to demonstrate the removal of the 0.88:t acre parcel from the PUD.
Original PUD Name: Artesa Pointe PUD
Ordinance No.: 03-46
Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis
and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of
the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone
request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials
and documentation in support of the request.
PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.B)
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation
to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
The proposed PUD amendment proposes to remove a small (0.88:t acre) parcel from the
Artesa Pointe PUD and incorporate It into the proposed Tamiami Crossings CPUD. The
subject property is already zoned PUD and was intended for commercial use. The
surrounding area remains suitable for continued commercial development.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after
consultation with the county attorney.
The documents provided demonstrate unified control of the subject property and
proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD.
3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth
management plan.
The proposed amendment has no impact on consistency with the growth management
plan, and the property's use will remain consistent with the Henderson Creek Mixed Use
Subdistrict.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
8D (ilc/gl!:'...
.)(.", '-'.
f',) ,fC-
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and
screening requirements.
No compatibility relationships change from the proposed amendment. The proposed
amendment simply moves the property into the adjacent PUD.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The Artesa Pointe PUD will continue to meet its open space requirements and the
proposed Tamlami Crossings CPUD will provide30% of its acreage as usable open space.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Public facilities will be available at the time of construction as required by the County's
concurrency management system.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
The subject 0.88:t acre parcells presently within a commercial component of a PUD and
its inclusion into the Tamiami Crossings CPUD will provide for unified control within each
respective PUD. No expansion beyond what has been proposed is anticipated.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literai application of such
regulations.
The subject property will comply with the PUD regulations established for the proposed
Tamiami Crossing CPUD which are appropriate and consistent with that for commercial
development.
Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions,
however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the
civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order
to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions.
Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public
hearing been held on this property within the last year? 0 Yes 0 No
If so, what was the nature of that hearing?
Application FOf Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
b D c//q /0 <'5
" -', ..-\ .,.-)
jjLJ ,j.. L I
NOTICE:
This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has
been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The
application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application
through written notice or ceases to supplv necessary information to continue processinq
or otherwise active Iv pursue the rezoninq for a period of six (6) months. An application
deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed" through
inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re-
opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting
of a determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the project will be subject to the
then current code. (LDC Section 10.03.05.Q.)
Application For Public Hearing Fo!' PUD Rezone 1118/07
0,-) (}/'t/"/c(Q.
(........ .c-. _~~
('<.J ,:~)
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKETIN THE EXACT ORDER
LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION
NOTE: INCOMPELTE SUBMITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital/electronic copy of EIS or
exem tion 'ustification
Historical Surveyor waiver request
Utility Provisions Statement w/sketches
Architectural rendering of proposed structures
Survey, signed & sealed
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver
Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min scaled 1 "=400'
Electronic copy of all documents In Word format and plans (CDRom or
Diskette)
Letter of No Objection from the U.S. Postal Service
If located in RFMU {Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receivinc Land Areas
Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry 1. lacavera, State of Florida Division of Forestry @ 239-690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire
MitIgation & Prevention Plan", LDe Sectl 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c.
1 Additional set if located In the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelo ment Area
Co ies of detailed descrl tion of wh amendment Is necessar
Completed Application with list of Permitted Uses; Development
Standards Table; List of proposed deviations from the LDC (if any); List of
Develo er Commitments (download from webslte for current form)
Pre-a IIcatlon meetin notes
PUD Conce tual Master Plan 24" x 36" and One 8]1," x 11" co
Revised PUD Conce tual Master Plan 24" x 36"and One 8]1," x 11" co
Original PUD document/ordinance and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF
AMENDING THE PUD
Revised PUD a lication with chan es crossed thru & underlined
Revised PUD application w/amended Title page w/ord #'s, LDC
10.02.13.A.2
Deeds/Legal's & Survey (if boundary of original PUD is amended)
List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation
Owner/Affidavit signed & notarized
Covenant of Unified Control
Completed Addressing checklist
61,0161
----- -----------
Date
=-d-~ica;t --g;~t-5jg;;ature --
Application For Public Heming For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
#OF
COPIES REQUIRED
NOT
REQUIRED
24 X
24 X
24 X
24 X
24 X
24 X
24 X
24 X
2 X
2 X
2 X
2 X
2 X
4
X
4
4
4
4
7
S
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q"'''.'
,
8f) Q/Q/o8
(X) :j I
" ,
ORDINANCE NO. 08-~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 03-46, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE ARTESA POINTE PLANNED
, UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), BY AMENDING THE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SECTION 1.2,
ENTITLED "LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN ORDER TO
REMOVE A 0.88 +/. PARCEL OF LAND FROM THIS
PUP, AND REPLACING EXHIBIT "A," THE pun
MASTER PLAN, WITH A NEW EXHIBIT "A," pun
MASTER PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2003, the Board of County COlll1l1lssioners approved
Ordinance Nwnber 03-46, which established the AI1esa Point Plnrmed Unit Development Zoning
DIstrict; and
WHEREAS, cn March 23, 2004, the Board of County Conunlssloners approved Ordinance
Number 04-17 Amending Ordinance Number 03~,4G in order to correct ~crivener's el'rol'S~ and
WHEREAS, Wayne Arnold, A1CP, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associntes, P.A., alld Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., representing KRG 951 & 41, LLC,
petitioned the Board of County'Commissioners to amend Ordin,ance Number 03-46, liS amended, fot'
the Artesa Point PlalUled Unit Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLOIUDA, that:
SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO STATEMENT OF COMPUANCE
The introductory paragraph of the Statement of Compliance of Ordinance Number 03R46, as
amended, (Artesa Pointe Planned Unit Development) is hereby amended to read as follows:
TIle purpose of this Section is to express the intent of Gateway Shoppes, LLC.
hereinafter refen-ed to as the DoveloplueJtt, to create a Phnmed Unit Development
(PUD) on llillU +/- acres ofland IOCllted In Section 3, Township 51 Sonth, Ran8e 26
Iiast, Collier Connty, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be
Artesa Pob'te. Tha development of Artesa Pointe will be in compliance with tha
planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth
Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the gt'Owth policle. and
land development regelaUons adopted pursuant to tilC Growth Management Plan,
Fnture Land U.e Element and other applicable regulations for the foliowing,re.sons:
SBC'l10N TWO: AMENDMENTS TO LEGAL DESCIUPTION OF THE PROJECT
Section 1.2 entitled "Legal Dc.seription" of Ordinanco Number 03-46, as amended. (Artesa
Pointe Planned Unit Development), is hereby amended to read as follows:
Page I 00
Words Wlderlined are additions; words struoktlweugh are deletions.
"
1.3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
.\ poretli (lflll:l'EWeeat~a~wnsh~u~Bg1l2~ Baal, Gollier
Q)1:Il\tyrPl8fida-belng.i"'6rolll\l'lielilu1y.do&efl~
Gouuncn(!lHlt-lh&-~~mef-G~R J, Th'VlISWp ~I gtl"!ft..ltallg~sti
GeUitK'---Gelll\~~en6&-fllIl-$&1:11h Ogo41'6~eltg-thlHi5t-line--ef...lhe
seulhee5t-q\lMteHlf.ooid-Seetlea. 3, fel' B. dkltaMe-6f..h3til,:\1 re,,11811. peillt-eJt41.&.seuth8l4y
ligb~in...f \I.S. 11 (S"''''-~Q~Higbl4-wol'lt--<h.n''''''IH\.rth
&~tr6IOfl~~!ltGrly-rigla-GHwj' liDlJj feta c1lsl~U.32 fet)tta a
jt6inl an 18/t 'o'tllStGdy-ltM-ef...H.GO-foet-wkle--dreimlgo--e&$ement-e-reooIded-in--QUleW
_F<lHlooI<-1<ktI-\la~"h....~.,""-rd~"""::',,"""
Flol'idQj-thH;un&-beiftg-tllo-,e1nt-ef..b~\Ofteo--run-Sou~O!.~esl;-lll0fltl
\KI1cJ..we&to")'-liflerWHHiiel.6IW8-9~eeH:e-t6e-bogil"n~tulgential-eifooIBl'
~n~e~~RI~e~e"g-eaid-we6tel'ly-Jil1&-Wl&tho-nl~
.................e-IltHighf,lwA.g-a-f<ldl.. of 2,79Ml fcott--<l~.nlfol-Mgl....f
OpoU'1R"\ !ubtelldeltbY8l.Jller"~~t-e-h~tse\llh2S~Q8'g,"...oo~
t\t'tH~~8eH04be.en<kt.&Qid-e\l,fYot"the-eam&-beifl:g-ll-poII1Hi1Hk~rth-line-of
~l:h tlaJfeflil8 I.llJtuJHi&1fefsaid geGtie~eAee-f\HHlellh 89~1l'59" ..esl,oloog
slfill-DeftlHine-for,lHIistlUlGO-Of2,!33,22 feet ,,, a pelnHul the enswl'lyfighHf\.8) line of
1ol~~d(SI.,.n...9!1)(righ...f .Ill;' .ori")lllt..~",
along-5Gi~oFly-!iflerfW'-lHli9klRoo--of 1.2111.S] feelj tltonOOrlea>.J.ng said Figllll'lf-way
Ibl&ri'i~H&Wing-f9Ur (~) eSIlf6e9 olong-tl!e-l~e-pl'ep~d8!lOlibed.m.Qffioial
Re&Ords--Be&~t--Jl.aget-J.a+7-Ql\d-l~erU~~!..-eaflt.-f~l'-(Hti&lQM&-&f:..l.Q{)r09
feet; theBe\! nail I\9I,th ooo:!g'Q3" oa&l-feHl-dtsWiee Bf IJe.(jg f~no!tfl:
Q4!G9-'-4~t-feP-ft-tii~lBJ.91 fttllllhMeH\llH()ulh-892S~f-'HiistMee
af..8G;t.QUeet..f.f1-a.paiut-thet-iH-distaRe8 sf 1QQ.-QO feet S8~8fty.e.HuuJ-,ataltel.......;lb.lJl(J
.""'....'li.'_ullt.F1y righl '['N.ylln. ,f\l.8.1l !8"~0l-(;!oo-r..1--righI-of-
..a>)111.elllllllttft-OOt'I~~H-4i9~lHler1h
35639'40$" \la&l-leF-Q-d16(G:nGe-&MOG.OO-fee~eitt~i6--wu~(.6f.way
li114 tlf U.S. ill tJlenee ~\lth 51030'16" 0001, alellg-flaKl-I;fl~i64Meo-of...(;oo.oo
~&-flalnl-Of-b(!gbttl1ng,eaI'lt&ffiiftg~F6!IrfROOH)t-k&9.
A PARCEl OF lAND LOCATEO IN SECTION 3. TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST.
COlLIER COUNTY FLORIOk BEING MORE PARTICUlARl v DESCRIBED AS FOlLOWS: .
COMMENCE AT TH~ EAST OUARTER CORNeR OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH.
~~ ~~i~.:6r'f~~E~p Cil\'E"~tiT\?~~t~~E~ ~ur~~rs~gr.ci~5~' ~~~
3~~~~~T~.' ~dA:: .t.~E(~~OF~~GWr 1~~J:,j~~~~.~i:~ ~~~?:.
WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHER!. V RIGHT -OF.WAY LINE. FOR A DISTANCE OF Q8G:'l' FEET
~~~:~~~~~~fo~~~grt~K~r~~~~~~&JJ1~p!;T~~
OFFICIAL RECORDS Bool< 25
T' r
1aD 00 FEET TO "(HE NORTHERLY MOST WeSTERl v CORNER OF TRACT <Ie. OF TRAil
RIDGE AS DESCRIBeD IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAG~S 71 THRU 7'1 OF THE PUBLIC
~~~'i."r~~I~L~~~Zgt;!',y.,P€!,l~tk T~[,~~~ ~~~ ::':m: ~~~teL~~~
NORTH 00'04'63- FAST FOR A rnSTANCE OF 200.06 FEET- THENCt= RUN SOUTH BR"SS'67"
~J~ ~~~~~~.. ~:o",,'&J~r ~~& ~r ~~~';ri1~~:~C~~~~~~
RIGHT.Oft.WA.Y LINE OF us 41 (STATE ROAD 00\ (200 FOOT RlGHT.o~WAV'I' T~
~~~~~.'~.M';~~':: ~1fg:OAF ~:l:,Tto"g:J~6 :..s~"~E~~'r~1~~ ~ger'l.~~I~
RIGHT.OF.WAV liNE OF U.S, 41: THENCE RUN snllTH 54"20'16- EAST ALONG SAID
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. FORA DISTANCE OF 600,00 FeET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. CONTAINING 81.010 ACRES. MORE OR LESS
Page 2 of3
W orda underlined aro additions; WOl'~ strook mreugh are deletions.
p [) C~t/ Cf JD8
l--....-~
:):1 ').,-)
I j .':'.b"-.
8D Ci/q/cB
f)lj '7;;
[/" 0,;)
.1'.'
SECTION THREE: AMENDMENTS TO MASTER PLAN
Exhibit A, tho PUD Master PIau, of OrdinanQ~ Number 03-46~ as amended. (Artesa Pointe
PlmUled Unit Development) is hereby replaced with a ~ew Exhibit uAt" pun Mastel' Plan.
SECTION POUR: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of Stale.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-m!1iority vote of the Board of Counly
COJl1!D-issioners oreolJiel' County, Florida) this _ day of
.2008.
ArrEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLlER COUNTY, FLOIUDA
By:
, Deputy Clerk
By:
TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
tf:(
/i\'''If'Mnrjorie M. Student-Stirling
Assistant County Attorney
pago 3 of3
Words underlined 11I'O addition.; wo,'<!o '(fU,1t threugh are deletions,
I,'''..
........""-
""'"
.....,.,.,
".
',.".......
.'.......
"
"""",
.....
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
i
;
,
i ~~
I w
I ~~
: in='
...... . ...~
~ L.J
'. '-" I
""""i... I
ill"1
I
I
I
,
;
I
I
,
1
in !
;
I"
w
~
i
.'
4':
.If.'
t/,,:.:
/' ,','.
. , I ,
, I "
r. , t " [
",. I ,
""'1'1
. , . .
, , , , .
I. , . ,
, , , .
! ,.,
\ ',',','
~ r.,.,
I I . .
.~ 6 1<<.:-:
~Q i",
a::li'i ,. I .
il!gl~ :;.:-:-:-
, I , .
, , ,
; I . . .
I ,...
. I , .
.. I I
, I I .
~w , , , ,
B~~ ", I
lilg
w
o
:;;
gQWD
I ............._.......~t. ..............
:::..--.--......-- -.......'-.......-... .. -...-.--.-...
w
!1,
~(;']
S!!j
w~
I ~m
. ~il
rr
I
i
I
I
;
_.. .::.::;:,:;:;":::..:~~~::...:.-.::-.::::_.I
o
c.-:--
8D o/q /c8
PS 3..j'
~
. I ~
'Ill
~
~
~
~
~
..
~
~
<Ii
il
0:
"'
5
~
0:
~
~
~
~
z
8
~.I I
!I~! :
~!U ;1
o\I'i' Ii
;1. ~ I
~illl
~g !
I
. .
.
t
I
I
@l~;
I