Agenda 05/27/2025 Item #11B (Board-directed on-site evaluation of parking capacity for various multifamily developments)5/27/2025
Item # 11.B
ID# 2025-1143
Executive Summary
Recommendation to review staff findings of the Board-directed on-site evaluation of parking capacity for various
multifamily developments within Collier County, provide direction to staff regarding policy on parking deviations and
administrative parking reductions for multifamily projects, and provide direction on adjusting the adopted parking
standards through an amendment to the Land Development Code.
OBJECTIVE: To provide the Board of County Commissioners with information regarding staff observations of the
current parking capacity and demand within various multifamily developments within Collier County in order to
evaluate and determine if parking deficiencies exist under the current Collier County Land Development Code (LDC)
parking standards or where parking reductions from the LDC parking standards have been granted.
CONSIDERATIONS: During the Staff and Commission General Communications portion of their agenda on October
22, 2024, the Board of County Commissioners (Board), directed staff to bring back a study regarding multifamily off-
street parking standards in various Florida jurisdictions. The discussion was initiated by Commissioner McDaniel who
indicated that the standards in Collier County (County) did not require the necessary amount of parking demanded by
the County’ s multifamily complexes.
Staff conducted a study by comparing the off-street parking requirements from 12 jurisdictions located throughout the
State of Florida, including Lee County, Palm Beach County, and the City of Naples. The study revealed that the parking
standards in Collier County are mid-range when compared to the other jurisdictions—neither too restrictive nor too
lenient. Additionally, staff noted that the parking deviation process may be requested by petitioners for projects zoned
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and that LDC section 4.05.04 F.3 also allows for up to a 20 percent parking reduction
through the APR process. Staff presented these findings to the Board on January 14, 2025. The Board then directed
staff to visit multifamily projects throughout the County between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. to determine if parking
deficiencies exist during that timeframe and to report back to the Board with its observations. Additionally, staff was
directed to refrain from approving any Administrative Parking Reduction (APR) applications until further notice from
the Board, but that parking deviations may still be requested by petitioners.
Staff compiled a list of communities to investigate, with the intent of representing a broad cross-section of multifamily
projects located throughout the County, including those designed as apartment buildings, condominiums, and
townhouses. Staff used approved Site Development Plans (SDP)/Final Subdivision Plats (PPL) to assist with
documenting each development’s site layout, unit count, and types of parking facilities. A total of 12 communities were
chosen. Five were approved with an APR and the remaining seven did not have any approved parking reductions. Staff
visited the 12 communities between February 11, 2025, and March 4, 2025, when parking demand was believed to be at
its highest—during the workweek, on either a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday evening, between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00
p.m. Staff systematically drove around each community, performing informal windshield surveys by observing the
various types of parking facilities (e.g., privately-owned driveways/garages, off-street surface parking lots, and on-street
parking) and taking notes of the approximate percentage of occupied spaces, both within designated and undesignated
guest parking areas, driveway parking, service vehicle parking, handicap parking, or other residential parking. Staff
documented, including taking photographs, if any vehicles were unlawfully parked in a street or over a driveway or
other parking-related issue. A table compiling all of staff’s findings for each of the 12 communities is provided in
Attachment “A.” Staff also noted if there were any past documented parking concerns or complaints.
Staff’s observations revealed that adequate parking exists within all 12 communities except for one community (i.e., The
Ranch at Orange Blossom). No parking issues were identified at any of the other communities, including those
approved with parking reductions. Unlawfully parked vehicles were observed within three other communities (i.e.,
Meadow Lake Apartments, Summit Place in Naples, and Avion Woods), but this was possibly attributed to a lack
of self-enforcement issue rather than a deficiency of available parking, and which may be experienced within any
community, including those developed with single-family detached homes.
The multi-family portion of the Ranch at Orange Blossom community contains 264 units, all three-bedrooms with a one
car garage and driveway. There is no amenity center within this section of the development. The required number of
parking spaces per LDC is 528 parking spaces; however, the community provides 604 parking spaces on site per the
Page 862 of 7924
5/27/2025
Item # 11.B
ID# 2025-1143
Final Subdivision Plans (Phase 5- PL20210000781 & Phase 2 - PL20200000907). Additional parking over the code
requirement is provided via 76 auxiliary spaces in the form of off-street surface parking lots and on-street parking areas,
and the remaining 528 spaces are provided via 1-car garages and driveways. Staff's observations of the community,
even with additional parking, were as follows: The off-street parking lots were nearly entirely filled. The on-street
parking areas were completely filled. While there were many vacant driveways, the development as a whole had 10-12
vehicles unlawfully parked (either parked within the street or over a sidewalk). Photographs of staff observations are
attached to this executive summary as Attachment “B.” Staff suspects this community is having a parking problem.
Based on observed parking deficiencies within the townhome community of The Ranch at Orange Blossom with some
empty driveways, but underprovided publicly accessible parking, staff determined further examination, and focus should
be placed on multifamily communities designed as townhome style developments. Staff noted that three of the four
townhome communities evaluated provided parking that exceeded the LDC parking standards. The Ranch at Orange
Blossom for example was one of the communities with the least additional parking from the LDC requirement, being 14
percent over the parking requirement and Summit Place in Naples being the community with the most additional
parking at 58 percent over the required parking. Avion Woods the only development which provided exactly the
required parking was the smallest townhome community evaluated containing 26 units, all two-bedrooms.
To highlight if the observed parking deficiency within The Ranch at Orange Blossom community would be unique to
Collier County’s current parking standards, staff updated the twelve-jurisdiction multifamily parking standards
comparison matrix presented to the Board at its January 14, 2025 meeting. Staff updated the last column of the matrix to
evaluate the parking requirement for a 264 unit, three-bedroom townhome community (i.e. The Ranch at Orange
Blossom). Additionally, it was identified that four of the twelve jurisdictions had separate townhome and multifamily
parking calculation requirements. These parking standards were included in the updated Multifamily Parking Space
Regulation Comparison Matrix provided as Attachment “C” of this executive summary. The required parking for a
townhome project such as The Ranch at Orange Blossom based on each of the twelve evaluated jurisdiction's parking
standards ranged from 264 to 594 parking spaces. Collier County’s parking requirement of 528 parking spaces for The
Ranch at Orange Blossom was therefore identified as somewhere in the middle range in terms of the amount of parking
required relative to the other eleven Florida jurisdictions evaluated. Furthermore, The Ranch at Orange Blossom
currently provides 604 parking spaces, exceeding the highest parking requirement of the twelve jurisdictions evaluated
of 594 required parking spaces, showing that the parking deficiency observed would most probably be seen in all of the
evaluated Florida jurisdictions, not only Collier.
Based on the findings of this evaluation, staff is seeking direction from the Board regarding policy on parking deviations
and administrative parking reductions for multifamily projects and potential land development code amendments to
adjust the current parking requirements.
An additional consideration that may factor into the evaluation is that any increase in the multifamily parking
requirement may render a large percentage of existing multifamily complexes as ‘non-conforming’ under a newer
standard, as well as Ch. 2023-349, Laws of Florida (amending “Senate Bill 250”), which renders more restrictive or
burdensome amendments to Collier County’s land development regulations before October 1, 2026, void ab initio.
This item is consistent with the Collier County strategic plan objective to preserve and enhance the character of our
community.
FISCAL IMPACT: If directed, budget allocations have been provided within the appropriate cost centers for the
necessary staffing for the Land Development Code Amendment (LDCA) process. Additionally, based on the fact that an
increase in the parking requirements for multifamily complexes would render a percentage of existing complexes as
non-conforming, a cost will be borne by these complexes to address their parking deficiencies if any
modifications/additions are sought for the complexes.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address
specific parking requirements for multifamily apartment complexes, and any modification to the parking requirements
will have no effect on the GMP.
Page 863 of 7924
5/27/2025
Item # 11.B
ID# 2025-1143
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for
Board direction. (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATIONS: To review the staff’s on-site evaluations of parking capacity and demand within multifamily
communities in the County and provide direction for policy on parking deviations and administrative parking reductions
for multifamily projects and any recommended adjustment to the County’s standards.
PREPARED BY: Josephine Medina, AICP, Planner III– Zoning Division
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment A - Multifamily Parking On-Site Observations
2. Attachment B - The Ranch at Orange Blossom Parking Photographs
3. Attachment C - Multifamily Parking Space Regulation Comparisons
Page 864 of 7924
Multifamily Parking On-Site Observations
Project Name Location
Type of
Multifamily Date Time
Administrative
Parking Reduction
(APR)# of Units
# of Parking spaces
Required # of Parking spaces Provided
# Parking Space
Reduction Approved per
APR SDP/PPL
Ordinance
No. Parking description
Aster @ Lely 8120 Acacia St Apartment Thursday, February 13, 2025 7:00 PM No 308 616 616 N/A 07-AR-11926 92-15
This project consists of approximately 11 buildings designed with 22 units
per building, for a total of 308 units. The property includes 478 surface
parking spaces, 29 building garage spaces, 29 building tandem spaces, and
80 detached garage spaces, for a total of 616 spaces. The project's
Clubhouse / Pool area has 31 parking spaces. No vehicles were unlawfully
parked within the streets of this project. Some parking areas had more
parked cars in front of the apartments than others. Bottom Line: This
project likely has no parking problem.
Marco Shores
Country Club
1771 Mainsail
DR Condominium Tuesday, February 18, 2025 6:30 PM APR-PL20200000718 100 208 195 13 PL20180002824 18-20
This project consists of a 100-unit multi-family complex. APR -
PL20200000718 was approved to allow the multi-family project to abide by
the parking regulations of the current code of 1.75 parking spaces for one
bedroom units and 2 parking spaces for bedroom units of 2 or more vs. the
PUD requirement of 2 parking spaces per unit with no distrinction made for
number of bedrooms. This provided a reduction of 13 of the 102 required
spaces for the 1-bedroom units. This reduction calculates to approximately
a 12.75% reduction for the parking requirement for the 1-bedroom units and
a 6.63% reduction for the whole development totaling 195 spaces based on
the SDP provided. No vehicles were unlawfully parked within the parking
area of this project. Some parking areas had more parked cars in front of the
apartments than others. Bottom Line: This project likely has no parking
problem.
The Crest
11480
Tamiami TRL E Apartment Tuesday, February 25, 2025 7:30 PM APR-PL20170001790 200 417 388 36 PL20160001444 15-33
This project consists of a 200-unit apartment complex. APR-
PL20170001790 was approved to allow the apartment complex to a
reduction of 36 parking spaces of the 417 spaces required per code. A
review of the most current SDP identifies the project as providing 388
spaces therefore only being 29 spaces or 7% deficient of the required
parking per code. No vehicles were unlawfully parked within the parking
area of this project. Some parking areas had more parked cars in front of the
apartments than others. Bottom Line: This project likely has no parking
problem.
The Ranch at
Orange
Blossom
1948 Oil Well
Rd Townhome Tuesday, February 25, 2025 7:30 PM No
Overall: 264
Phase 2: 116
Phase 5: 148
Overall: 528
Phase 2: 232
Phase 5: 296
Overall: 604
Phase 2: 262
Phase 5: 342 N/A
Phase 2: PL2020000907
(ICP) Phase 5:
PL20210000781 (PPLA) 04-74
This project consists of approximately 264 units located within 30 buildings
designed with garages and driveways where residents can park their
vehicles. The project also has two off-street parking lots (containg resident
and guest parking) as well as two small roadways that are designed with on-
street parking. This project has no amenity area. The project provide 76
auxillary spaces that constitute 14% additional parking spaces over the
required parking per code. Staff's observations include the following: The
off-street parking lots were nearly completely filled. The on-street parking
areas were completely filled. While there were many vacant driveways, the
development as a whole had 10-12 vehicles unlawfully parked (either
parked within the street or over a sidewalk). Bottom line: This project
likely has a parking problem.
Page 865 of 7924
Multifamily Parking On-Site Observations
Project Name Location
Type of
Multifamily Date Time
Administrative
Parking Reduction
(APR)# of Units
# of Parking spaces
Required # of Parking spaces Provided
# Parking Space
Reduction Approved per
APR SDP/PPL
Ordinance
No. Parking description
Meadow Lakes
Apartments
(fka Saxon
Manor Isles
Apartments)
105 Manor
Blvd.Apartment Wednesday, February 26, 2025 7:15PM No 252 504 517 N/A SDP-95-022 94-21
This project consists of approximately 13 buildings and designed with
multiple off-street parking areas, each located near one or more of the
residential buildings. None of the residential buildings were designed with a
garage. The project's amenity area has an off-street parking lot located
nearby, but the location of this lot is equally as close to two of the apartment
buildings. Several spaces within this lot are designated for "future resident"
parking. Staff observed one car lawfully parked within this lot and a food
truck unlawfully parked, likely due to the lack of self-enforcement from the
management company (rather than a lack of avaiable parking for standard-
sized vehicles). No vehicles were unlawfully project within the streets of
this project. Some off-street parking areas had more parked cars than
others, but for the project as a whole, approximately 65% of the spaces
were used. Bottom line: This project likely has no parking problem.
Naples Walk
15191
Cedarwood Ln Condominium Wednesday, February 26, 2025 6:40 PM APR-PL20170000253 120 240 208 47 PL20190000167 03-24
Project consists of approximately 120 units located within 3 buildings
designed with multiple off-street parking areas located near or around each
residential building. The property includes 28 carport spaces and 33 garage
spaces. The project's amenity area has an off-street parking lot located
nearby, but the location of this lot is equally as close all three of the Condo
Buildings. APR-PL20190000167 was approved to allow for a reduction of 47
parking spaces of the required 240 parking spaces. A review of the most
recent SDP identifies 208 parking spaces providing therefore the project
only being 32 spaces or 13% deficiency from the parking requried by code.
No vehicles were unlawfully project within the streets of this project.
Approximately 65% of the spaces were used. Bottom Line: This project
likely has no parking problem.
St. Croix at
Pelican Marsh
4700 St Croix
Ln Condominium
Tuesday, February 11, 2025 &
Thursday February 20, 2025 7:15 PM N/A 360 734 734 N/A 2001-AR-865 02-71
Project consists of approximately 304 units located within 15 buildings with
multiple off-street parking areas located near or around each residential
building. The project includes 734 parking spaces which includes 227
carport spaces and 100 garage spaces. The project's amenity area shares
two off-street parking lot areas with two Condo Buildings. No vehicles were
unlawfully project within the streets of this project. Some off-street parking
areas had more parked cars than others, but for the project as a
whole,Approximately 75% of the spaces were used. Bottom Line: This
project likely has no parking problem.
Allura
16210 Allura
Cir Apartment
Thursday February 20, 2025 &
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
7:40 PM &
7:04 PM
APR-
PL20190002232*
(requested for
amenity center)304 711 646 65 SDPI-PL20210002418 19-22
Project consists of approximately 3 buildings designed with multiple off-
street parking areas located near or around each residential building. The
property includes 84 garage spaces . The project's amenity area has its own
parking area near two apartment buildings. APR-PL20170004001 approved
a reduction of 65 spaces specifically for the amenity center. No vehicles
were unlawfully project within the streets of this project. Some off-street
parking areas had more parked cars than others, but for the project as a
whole,Approximately 60-70% of the spaces were used. Bottom Line: This
project likely has no parking problem.
Page 866 of 7924
Multifamily Parking On-Site Observations
Project Name Location
Type of
Multifamily Date Time
Administrative
Parking Reduction
(APR)# of Units
# of Parking spaces
Required # of Parking spaces Provided
# Parking Space
Reduction Approved per
APR SDP/PPL
Ordinance
No. Parking description
Lago
Apartments
(Briarwood
Apartments)
10200
Sweetgrass Cir Apartment Wednesday, February 26, 2025 6:40 PM APR-PL20170004001 320 605 562 96 SDPI-PL20200000651 13-45
Project consists of approximately 320 units within 6 buildings designed with
multiple off-street parking areas located near or around each residential
building. APR-PL20170004001 was approved to allow a parking reduction of
96 spaces from the code required 605 spaces. The project's amenity area
has its own parking area near two apartment buildings. Per the most recent
SDP the project provides 562 parking spaces in the form of 227 carport
spaces, 61 garage spaces and 33 staked spaces. The project is therefore
only 43 space or 10% under the required parking by code. No vehicles were
unlawfully project within the streets of this project. Some off-street parking
areas had more parked cars than others, but for the project as a
whole,Approximately 65% of the spaces were used. Bottom Line: This
project likely has no parking problem.
Summit Place
In Naples
14955 Collier
Blvd Townhome Tuesday, March 4, 2025 7:10PM No 246 532 844 N/A
PPL2004-AR-6935
SDPA-2003-AR-3982 SDP-
2002-AR-2510 02-46
Project consists of approximately 246 units with 3-4 bedrooms and each
designed with one and two-car garages. Some buildings have typical length
driveways, others are longer. Many driveways had either one vehicle parked
within or they were vacant. There is no on-street parking; however, staff
observed approximately 20 vehicles were unlawfully parked in the street.
The unlawfully parked cars were likely an enforcement issue rather than a
parking problem, similiar to what would be found in communities developed
with single-family detached homes. The project's amenity area has its own
off-street parking area. Vehicles were parked within these lots but a
majority of space were vacant. The project provides for a total of 844
parking spaces which constitutes 312 or 58% over the parking required by
code of 532 spaces. Bottom Line: This project likely has no parking
problem.
Olé at Lely
Resort
9075 Celeste
Dr
Casitas /
Townhouse/
Quads Tuesday, March 4, 2025 7:15 PM No
Overall: 623
Casita - 154
Townhouse - 281
Quad - 188 1,339 1,645 N/A SDP-2004-AR-6712 92-15
The project consists of approximately 623 units. 154 - Casita, 281 -
Townhouse, & 188 - Quad. Each building is designed with multiple off-street
parking areas located near or around each residential building for a total of
1531 spaces. The project's Clubhouse area has a total parking area of 67
spaces. Tennis/Basketball Court, 47 spaces. The project overall per the
most recent SDP contains 1,645 parking spaces which equates to 306 or
22% more parking spaces than the required parking per code. Bottom Line:
This community has no parking issues. However, the parking was full
near some of the units but not all.
Avion Woods 3519 Hazel Rd Townhome Tuesday, March 4, 2025 6:50 PM No 26 54 26 N/A SDPI-2002-AR-3489 95-68
The project consists of 26 two bedroom unit townhomes. Each unit has a
one car garage and a driveway. The projects amenity area has two parking
spaces located in front of the pool 1 which is a handicap space which staff
onserved as being un-occupied at the time of the site visit. There were one
dead end street where a car was parked that would not impede traffic but
where the driveway was already occupied. About 50% of the driveways had
no cars on them. Bottom line: This community likely does not have a
parking issue
Page 867 of 7924
THE RANCH AT ORANGE BLOSSOM PARKING
Page 868 of 7924
THE RANCH AT ORANGE BLOSSOM PARKING
Page 869 of 7924
THE RANCH AT ORANGE BLOSSOM PARKING
Page 870 of 7924
Multifamily Parking Spaces Regulations Comparison Table – The Ranch at Orange Blossom
Numbered from jurisdictions requiring the least to the most parking
No.
Local
Government
Min. Parking Spaces per
Dwelling Unit (du)
Min. Visitor Parking
Spaces per
Dwelling Unit (du)
The Ranch at Orange
Blossom Parking
Calculation:
264 Unit
3-Bedroom Townhomes
1 City of
Venice 1/du No Minimum
264 Spaces
2
City of
Sarasota 1.25/du No Minimum
330 Spaces
3
Collier
County 1/du
Efficiency: +0.5/du
1 bedroom:
+0.75/du
2 or more
bedrooms: +1/du
528 Spaces
4
Palm Beach
County
Multifamily: Studio/efficiency:
1/du
1 or more bedrooms: 1.75/du
*Townhomes: 2/DU
+1/4du
(+.25/du)
*No Minimum
528 Spaces
*528 Spaces
5
City of Fort
Myers
1 bedroom -1.5/du
2 or more bedrooms – 2/du
*Townhomes: 2/du
+10% overall
(+0.1/du)
*No Minimum
555 Spaces
*528 Spaces
Page 871 of 7924
Multifamily Parking Spaces Regulations Comparison Table – The Ranch at Orange Blossom
Numbered from jurisdictions requiring the least to the most parking
No.
Local
Government
Min. Parking Spaces per
Dwelling Unit (du)
Min. Visitor Parking
Spaces per
Dwelling Unit (du)
The Ranch at Orange
Blossom Parking
Calculation:
264 Unit
3-Bedroom Townhomes
264 Unit
6 Village of
Estero 2/du +10% Overall
(+0.1/du)
555 Spaces
7 Lee County 2/du +10% overall
(+0.1/du)
555 Spaces
8 City of
Naples 2/du +1/10 du
(+0.1/du)
555 Spaces
9
City of
Bonita
Springs
Multi-family: Studio/efficiency:
1.25/du
1 bedroom: 1.5/du
2 bedrooms: 1.75/du
3 or more bedrooms: 2/du
*Townhomes: 2/DU
+10% Overall
(+0.1/du)
*+10% Overall
(+0.1/du)
555 Spaces
*555 Spaces
10
Sarasota
County
Units with avg. size less than
900 s.f.: 1/du
Units with avg. size greater
than 900 s.f:
1 bedroom – 1.5/du
2 or more bedrooms – 2/du
+1 per 5/du
(+0.2/du)
581 Spaces
(Calculation based on
Units with avg. size
greater than 900 s.f.)
Page 872 of 7924
Multifamily Parking Spaces Regulations Comparison Table – The Ranch at Orange Blossom
Numbered from jurisdictions requiring the least to the most parking
* Jurisdiction’s code separates multifamily and townhomes as different uses for parking calculation purposes.
No.
Local
Government
Min. Parking Spaces per
Dwelling Unit (du)
Min. Visitor Parking
Spaces per
Dwelling Unit (du)
The Ranch at Orange
Blossom Parking
Calculation:
264 Unit
3-Bedroom Townhomes
11
Broward
County
Multifamily: Efficiency/1-
bedroom: 1.5/du
2 bedroom: 2/du
3 or more bedrooms: 2.5/du
*Townhouse: 2/du
+1 per 5/du
(+0.2/du)
*+1 per 5/du
(+0.2/du)
713 Spaces
*581 Spaces
12 St. Johns
County
1-2 bedrooms: 1.5/du
3 or more bedrooms: 2/du
+1/4du
(+.25/du)
594 Spaces
Page 873 of 7924
Multifamily Parking Spaces Regulations Comparison Table – The Ranch at Orange Blossom
Numbered from jurisdictions requiring the least to the most parking
Source:
▪ Broward County: LDC Sec. 39-228 (4) (Multi-family dwelling).
▪ City of Bonita Springs: LDC Section 4-1732(1).c (Multiple-family buildings)
▪ City of Fort Myers: LDC Section 134.3.5, Minimum number of off-street parking spaces (Multifamily)
▪ City of Naples: LDC Section 50-104, Number of parking spaces (12) (Multifamily dwelling units)
▪ City of Sarasota: LDC Sec.VII-204, (2) Automobile Standards (Residential dwelling units; Multifamily)
▪ City of Venice: LDC Section 3.6.3, Table 3.6.1 (Multifamily Dwelling)
▪ Collier County: LDC Section 4.05.04, Parking Space Requirements, Table 17 Parking Space Requirements (Residential uses: Multi-
family dwellings)
▪ Lee County: LDC Section 34-2020, Parking spaces (3)( Multiple-family and timeshare units)
▪ Palm Beach County: Article 6, Chapter B, Parking and Loading, 6.B.1.B – Minimum Parking and Loading Requirements (Multifamily,
Recovery Community, and Cottage Homes (Multiple Units on a Single Lot)
▪ Sarasota County: LDC Section 124-120, Residential uses (Multifamily with Average Dwelling Unit Sizes Less than 900 SF in floor area
& Multifamily, Greater than 900 SF in floor area)
▪ St.Johns County: LDC Section 6.05.02.E, Table 6.17 Off Street Parking Requirements (Apartments/Condominiums)
▪ Village of Estero: LDC Section 5-204, Table 5-204.B.1, Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces.
Page 874 of 7924