Backup Documents 03/01/2021 Spector 3.1.2021 PowerPointONE NAPLES
(PL20190000696 and PL20190000697)
Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting
3.1.2021
1
2
Legal Considerations Applicable to Rezoning Request
There are 26 legal considerations listed in the Executive Summary
Staff has found that the request does not meet 7 of the listed criteria
There are an additional 6 criteria that have not been met
The proposal does not meet half of the criteria established for determining whether a rezoning to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) is appropriate, and you only need one to deny
the request.
2
3
Conformity with GMP
(Number 9 on list in Executive Summary) Staff acknowledges that the project will only be consistent with the Growth Management Plan if the companion amendment is adopted.
3
4
Internal and External Compatibility
The proposed development project eliminates long standing existing “street level” neighborhood commercial uses. Staff, in its recommendation, originally suggested a condition that a
15’ street setback would only be approved if “if street level pedestrian commercial uses” were included in the high rises. Though staff had assured us that this would mean that the
commercial uses would have to be at ground level, the applicant has taken a different approach and suggested that the condition could be met my simply providing for access at the street
level. Staff has not clarified this in the Executive Summary as they said they would.
4
5
Adequacy of Open Space
Staff recognizes that the applicant did not request a deviation, but also says nothing of the fact that the only open space provided in on the rooftops of the high rises, which is not
open space as defined in the Land Development Code.
5
6
Existing Land Use Pattern
(Number 9 on list in Executive Summary) Staff recognizes that the proposed project will intensify the residential land use pattern, which is an understatement when you consider the surrounding
densities after eliminating the few outliers that Greg Stuart will discuss.
6
7
Creation of Isolated District
(Number 11 on list in Executive Summary) Staff dismisses this consideration by stating that there are other PUDs in the area, which is disingenuous given that no other PUD has the setbacks
and heights proposed by the applicant. This will very much create an isolated district.
7
8
Changed or Changing Conditions
(Number 13 on list in Executive Summary) Here, staff very clearly states that the proposed change is not necessary, as the property can be developed using the current C-3 property development
regulations, but the applicant simply does not want to.
8
9
Influence on Neighborhood Living Conditions
(Number 14 on list in Executive Summary) While staff concludes that the project will not adversely affect living conditions, the staff report contains one “not directly compatible” finding
after another and a recommendation that the actual height of the buildings has to be limited to 76’, with the high rises being limited to an actual height of 125’, to achieve compatibility.
If there were no adverse effect on the neighborhood, such limiting conditions would not be necessary.
9
10
Grant of Special Privilege
(Number 20 on list in Executive Summary) Staff concludes that consistency with the future land use is determined to be consistent with the public welfare. However, the companion Growth
Management Plan Amendment, itself, grants a special privilege to the landowner by allowing it to greatly increase the allowable density to the detriment of the public as a whole.
10
11
Use of Property with Current Zoning
(Number 21 on list in Executive Summary) The property can be used in accordance with existing zoning.
11
12
Scale in Comparison to Neighborhood
(Number 22 on list in Executive Summary) Staff recognizes that the request exceeds the existing zoning criteria and the applicant has provided nothing to indicate that this project meets
the needs of the neighborhood.
12
13
Physical Characteristics/ Degree of Site Alteration
(Number 24 on list in Executive Summary) This project simply does not work without the County agreeing to gift the rights-of-way to the applicant.
13