The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Backup 12/03/2009 R CCPC REGULAR MEETING BACKUP DOCUMENTS DECEMBER 3, 2009 _'UP~ .' by~"'~;~Cp. Inc.".~ . rezone ""........_~'~the~, ,"::I, :":"m~,,,,=,_ ,-,,-,Ib ~1t~""""""I~0Ia\riet . ~~~~=~' . dIIi' ,,~ ,. I to' ...,.~' . ,., ,........... ".' . AlIIIJ!I" , - ,. ~ ""- '" ",. '" " q' ,n;"." '." ' " . ,jllmperty,l8"~. , , , "~"1IouI"..., ~1Mti ' '" . ,." , .~....' .~" 49..,'~~'g$~,. ; "',, ,.,\:_ _.,,"-':'::)";' _::_""':::,,~~'\,U:;~'~"':) , ,.'. _,' .:.;. m',:','~,:!> .~-'<"':;"" ".,: ',~ .:"iM'~ll!t.~,~ liwItId'to ...,;_,.. .~ _ ilil'a\~~#:lliftlt4id'tol5,rnIIl-' ~'~~, ~iPM, . '. ...,....~liiriwto. 10:~l teI.lh. ~Wf1p ~.,.alli'Ottt.'lld to ,'" .~oi~:fHouIdMIhah:' .... I..to..ten rnInuleI. PerllOM~"'" to h<<Ve P , ,-"'''''11. be I ~j Qr 1Il!lPhlc ~.lnC/UdIlj:I !nthe .fOe ..~ muat $IlbmIt lIald~., rnlnli'IlUrn of1O~:to;lIIe~~~_ I ten:~ IIlllaI be ftleQWIth:Jtl{ ',. ",. of ~"'."l..II/ld ~~:_ to De-' ~...-. ~ ClIlIl!r.to be ~..,... at l!14,p,Ub- ~ ~ 'All mliWriaIa uaea'lo pIillelntat/oA./ltfOre . 1IW'CCPC" blIClOIlie 8 ~Pert ofh Illeon:I iIlld.wlItllll.IIl~, filrP/'I&'I~,to tl18 Soard Of ~Comm~If8PpIlCJb/e. . . " , ,'.. """;'" -' "-"".-', ,. -,', ,I: CoR...', '~-\' ~~CT,} ." ~~ . ..'. '.. .', '~ ~. * ~'L;~' ~. l-~. :-ti,.. dec~to IIppiai .'=: ~,ihe:' lliiIM.a l'llCOIlJ'Of life . ~' ~', '11"1"'" . ' ~ ,. ,1)"1'I_'-, oW tt.e.ef.:l\-1l'18y n8td to, ~re that'i. " " 'of;the ~na.l8' INide Whlch .'......Ii'Ifiiy'~ llllld._:. whk:4Nh:e ~'I'''d. .,' .." C9IIIer t;OUnty PIarinlng Comml..,on. COlII8r County. Florida. ' 'Mark,li'.SIrIIin. Chalrman. J'-~', ---_..~'" , . " ,.,.., '.., ItldI ' ,AllIntM8I1IiiI"-J!).. , .' ,_"''6;MiI'i~iii~,s. .,' Ell. . . '"jllltWttnIlIUlhalibal.1010l1lill\ll8ll ,"~ . . Wl\llllil'le_~to~.groJljior.... liOn lIIlo\Ikt'" _ ~ 10 lail..... tlli~.;! ,~lOhwve~~ma:::=t= ' . Mof~:::the~pYblICl\eiIring; Wrtt- f8iI ~inuat De ~ wIIIt \Ife ~llII1Iofionlng "~~priorlO~3.2009. .IflllLald7,"'.....:.:-.., ..' lII"ll!:*tolSl~.atllll:~~ AJl~ '!HcIIIl,f!II.lIla~ bffore the cePe wlH bel:ll/ll6a,*,"a- i(~~=c:,~..~t~tlon - fl ',. ,-,J:::.. Any~fk~IO._a.:~,of.tI1.qcP6 .wIll'n.td.reco::~perWt__*, and .1I.",~ . ~lhataVllbalIl1l~ofll!t ~lt_. _ InIlludelallWIIl'RllllY1nd '!i" ~'UIiOl't~h-appaIIllalObe,bi8Id,' . 1:'-,... .' ..' ,', .,' ColllIl' Couilty l'lllnnlnll CoIIlmfaaIon .CoIlltC~,F~. MarkP.l!llnII!l.~ . ttOAQ8\OF ...r.;~~.'~Lj' , ~~~gMIl\'fMt IipUbtlChearlMg~ held lfto~llr CQunty Plannlng CommiSsion (CCPC) at "'A.M.,!J1.~..~3,'2OOll, in the Board '! of'~~iorw.. Maellng ROQJ1l, 3rd Floor, iAd/llIllll~on. Building. ~. (3ovammaril . Carilar. :t301 e,~;Jl'amlaml Trail, ~ Florida, to consider: ,....-.ie.. , {,",'."', .. " ....,' .... ~OIdtFlor\d8Go1fClub, 1I1C.. l8p1'\1B8riled by John Pll$SldOrDo of Cheffy Pll$Slc/omQ, and Margaret C. periy. AlCp, of' Wllson- ~lIlerlnc..l8requeatlng a standard razonafrom the . Golf COl.lf8$(GC) zoning district to the Agrloullure (AI Zonll)fdlt.trlcl.' ll)e sUbject projl8rly, ccmslstlng of 5!$3~7* acres, III /Qoated on the Vanderblft Beach Rclacf.~"~ 2 mU.. east of lIIe . .........8eaIIh RoacI (CR 882) 8nd CoIUer Boul.. ...VlIIf'Ct(CR't111) lnWaactlon,ln SectIon 31, Town$hlp 48 $oulll, e&nga 27 EIist. CQlller County; Florida. AU int~ed partill8 are Invited to appear and be 1'11iard.lndlvlduallplallel'$ wnl be limited to 5 min- utes on any~. '.exp,n wltnaeeesshell be limited to 10 ~ erI!lIl.Pereons who have been authorlzad to ~ a~or organlzation shOuld limit their ,pIlIaar/llRion,to llln.rIllnutes, PerSons wishing to have ~.Clr ~rn8t8rlals Included In the CCPC . I ~ pac~1l8 musUubmlt said matarlala minimum I. 'ot11t~ p,rI(Ir 10 th:e.l'e8pacllve public hearing. Wrlt- , t8ll'comml!ll!* 'l'I1U,$I. be fHed with the Department of ZOnlrlQ andLAind Developmant Revlawprlor to De- cernt!!lr 3. 2OOll,In order to be CQnaldarad at the pUb- .. IIch:e(lrlng, All mat.,rilllS used In presentatIon before . ~qopC; w,1II become a permanent part of the l800rd I . and.wllf be available for presentatiQn to the Board of , I bounty Commlssioners. if applicable, I j I I _l'l._&Ul) . . <DOlIO....1l!EST.... -. . . . . _.~m.m I ....IT" ~ ,.. .................. ." . _..",pmn -, , -.."'-... -co . _'::'1l!,~.1ES ; .1 ! " I I . I I , Colllar County Plan nino. Commission Collier County, Florida Mark P. Strain. Chalnnan ~ ...' AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUlLDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDNIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDNlDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTNE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - 200712008 Combined Cycle, including one 2009 Petition Transmittal of GMP Amendments A. Petition: CP-2008-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 225,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, and some uses of the C- 5 zoning district, with requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3'" Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 0!040.62 acres. (Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AlCP, Principal Planner) 1 _ _ .m_.M_.....~~,__.~..__,.,~.~~~___"._.._ _,' '",.___".__-.....<_~___.._,._._~_~.,,__ ,._"._--,~_.,."..._.~,-~ B. Petition: CP-2008-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to expand and modii)' the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict to allow an additional 390,950 square feet of commercial uses of the C- 4 zoning district, with exceptions, for property located on the south side of Randall Boulevard, extending from 8th Street Northeast west to the canal on the west side of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station, in Sections 26 and 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 01056.5 acres. (Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AlCP, Principal Planner) C. Petition: CP-2007-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Wilson Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, to allow a maximum of 40,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-I through C-3 zoning districts, for property located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Wilson Boulevard, in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 0105.17 acres. (Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner) D. Petition: CP-2007-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Immokalee Road/Oil Well Road Commercial Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 70,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-I through C-3 zoning districts, for property located at the southwest comer of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and 33rd Avenue Northeast, in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 01010.28 acres. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner) [PETITION WlTHDRA WN BY AGENT: D. WAYNE ARNOLD 11/12/2009] E. Petition: CP-2007-3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Mission Subdistrict to allow church and related uses, including schools, adult care and child care and 2,500 square feet of health services, with a maximum of 90,000 square feet of total development, for property located on the south side of Oil Well Road (CR 858), 1/4 mile west of Everglades Boulevard, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, consisting of 01021.72 acres. (Coordinator: Beth Yang, AlCP, Principal Planner) F. Petition: CP-2008-4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to re-designate from Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands to Neutral Lands property located on the east and south sides of Washburn Avenue, east of the Naples landfill, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 01028.76 acres. (Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner) G. Petition: CPSP-2008-7, Staff Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to add a new Policy 4.11 pertaining to aligning planning time frames in the GMP. (Coordinator. David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager) H. CP-2009-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use MaQ and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), to create the Dade-Collier Cypress Recreation Area District within the Conservation Designation, for property located along the Miami-Dade/Collier County border, in Sections 13, 14, 15 & 16, Township 53 South, Range 34 East, consisting of 1,608010 acres. (Coordinator: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner) I. CP-2007-5, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use MaQ and Map Series, to create the LoganlImmokalee Mixed Use Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 260,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-l through C-4 zoning districts, maximum of 60 dwelling units, and agricultural uses, including nursery operations for property located at the southeast corner of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 010 41 acres. (Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner) 2 J. Petition: VA-PL2009-1l62, Elke Remmlinger-Behnke, as Trustee of the Bernd Schoenherr 1998 Irrevocable Trust, represented by Karen Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, is requesting two after-the-fact variances for an existing screened pool enclosure that is an accessory structure to a single family dwelling. The first request is for a variance of 2.5 feet from the required rear yard setback of 15 feet as provided for in Section 8.16 of the Kings Lake Planned Unit Development (Ordinance Number: 82-52) to allow the existing accessory structure to remain at 12.5 feet from the rear property line. The second request is for a variance of2AI feet from the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet as provided for in Section 8.16 of the Kings Lake Planned Unit Development (Ordinance Number: 82-52) to allow the existing accessory structure to remain at 5.09 feet from the side property line. The subject .26010 acre property is located at 2454 King's Lake Bonlevard, in the King's Lake Unit 3, in Plat Book 13, Pages 33 and 34 of the Public Records of Collier County, in Section 7, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) K. Petition: CU-PL2009-170, First Haitian Baptist Mission, Inc., represented by Frederick E. Hood, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a Conditional Use expansion in the Agricultural (A) zoning district pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 2.03.0I.A.l.c.7. The proposed Conditional Use will permit expansion of a church by adding 1,550 square feet to an existing church building and by adding a new 19,281 square foot general purpose building. The 4.59 acre site is located at 14600 Tamiami Trull East in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: SV-PL2009-1l65, Henderson Properties, Inc., represented by Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, is requesting a variance from Subsection 5.06.04.FA. of the LDC which allows one wall, mansard, canopy or awning sign for each unit in a multi-occupancy parcel to allow two (2) wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs per unit in a multi-occupancy parcel with one sign facing the abutting road and one sign facing the internal parking area. The subject property is located at 13555 Tamiami Trail North and 895 Wiggins Pass Road at the northwest corner of Tamiami Trail North (US 41 North) and Wiggins Pass Road, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) B. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida GolfClnb, Inc., represented by John Passidomo ofCheflY Passidomo, and Margaret C. Perry, AlCP, of WilsonMiller Inc., is requesting a standard rezone from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Agriculture (A) zoning district. The subject property, consisting of 553.67010 acres, is located on the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, approximately 2 miles east of the Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AlCP) C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-1l398, Shoesop Properties, LLC, represented by Timothy Hancock, AlCP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc. is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a 25,000 square-foot commercial retail and office development to be known as Fakahatchee Pla7.a CPUD. The 5A6-acre subject property is located at the northwest comer of the Golden Gate Boulevard (CR 876) and Everglades Boulevard intersection in Section 6, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) 10. OLD BUSINESS 3 -_._~._,.._<-- - ... "~">"'---"--'--"'----"-'-" . --'-'~--~~-'-~ ~_. --,........._-,--,.-.....,-----_._- II. NEW BUSINESS A. Revisions to the GMP amendment hearing schedule for the Adoption of the 2007-2008 combined cycle petitions, and the Transmittal of the Immokalee Area Master Plan petition. 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 11/19/09 CCPC AgendaiRay Bellowslld 4 ~~~.1~''''~-'' " .1IteIi,.. ~bY"~~ '~ ~.......................~........... ' '641.4:0+., 'trif.;~;:;;l'~i_;i~"" , 1iI.....'-. JlI4A~ __ it)[tfP'!'"'! .' .;;; !2)'wan!1ll8Il8llld. ~.aw!IIilO~16 P8l: unR In a mulll- .~.1)8l!ItIwIlltoni~;'faClnt 1I\Il.\ltllng'road . anctOlle :n~ettlle ~~ldIu.-~~ I ,~1tI ,;:>>_L, .... "_iI1= '-"':f.'.;.;... ,~., e.' '~18~._l!J~(loIlier~~\: \=:::UJ:~~.'" ~ '\, .~ 'pertWllnI;f;n~shIlItMl'Ilmlled!O~om~ .'~, wl)o..... "'R~toUIIlI"'rll8 ~. ' tlon sIlouId. tiIIIllhelr p.-.ilIltIoo1 to ten 'ri1I~ ~: . WIsbiri;,tO haw wnu. Gl',GIIIIIIiic~'II\llh~ IMIle . qopc.. pII!lkete.l!1lltfliljblnlt~roatl!d8l . mlnl- mum.~tll~ptcl1l\ll~JlUbllGl1e8ring:. Writ- ten ~ ,!l1UIll blIlW V/lIIl tJleDlperlt/lenl Qf Zoning and LancU:t_liljludlld Aevlew prior to,Qe(...,di 3, 2009, ilttl\dlWto 11'.(lo"~ld.ectet 1I\Il pullik:~ All materials _In,';'jl: 11\lPI. bIfon!theCCPC wlqbecom.a perma- (l!II11 pari 01 tile ieoord and will be a~ flli' presantetlQn tGihelloftO'tUounty ComI'/liSllQrl~ Wapplk:able. , d ...- ~ .... """""" 9 . f1 '14 """"" _MJMNlillIIl:; Any'mOll ~d~ ~tppe8I ~~I~n,ql,lheqy~ , wmneed~rlldOfd.ot ~ pe/f!llnW~ and lIlo9IeflWtnlVPII~...tI1etllll8l'bllllm~oIthe . pnlCUdfnta;~~, wI1/l:Illnc:Iudea,8IItlM!timOJ!Y IiKlllVl- ' ~lIPOII'~1I\Ilsppeallatobe\b8aad. ,,'. . 1 . ;' Collier ~ Plannlng.Cool'm.m CoI~OO\IIIty. Florida ' , ' . MerkR_.~ AGENDA ITEM 9-A e-r <: :OU11.ty '+-- - STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2009 SUBJECT: PETITION SV-PL2009-1165, LAWMETKA PLAZA VARIANCE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Applicant: Benderson Properties, Inc. f/kla Benderson Development Company, LLC 570 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202 Agent: Mr. Bruce Anderson, Esquire Roetzel & Andress, LP A 850 Park Shore Drive Trianan Centre, 3'd floor Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 5.06.04.FA. of the Land Development Code (LDe) which allows one (I) wall, mansard, canopy or awning sign for each unit in a multi- occupancy parcel to allow two (2) wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs per unit in a multi- occupancy parcel. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located in the Lawmetka Plaza PUD (Planned Unit Development) (Ordinance No. 2002-51) at the northwest comer of Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and Wiggins Pass Road (CR 888) in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Please see the location map on the following page.) PURPOSEillESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The sign variance is for additional proposed wall signs for internal units located in two buildings (noted as Buildings 4 and 5) which anchor the corner of the Gateway Shoppes at North Bay shopping center. Currently, each of the internal units in the buildings are allowed one wall sign per unit. SV-PL2009-1165 Date Revised: 11-12~09 Page 1 of 8 . -~"-... , -~~~.._~,,-,. ._~.__.' -...-----...-.-,,---- . .-~.,.~ - .~_._.,~~""""_._~----"'_.__.._. , ~(Z~ . ~-....'/j) z wO t:~ 000 o ~ , o " " " c' ,,~ Q.~ . , , " o ---~ ., , o , I , . <'l , e..> ,- \ ---. , - '\ ["t Ie..> r.. - sn) l,.!il '~"~Yl ., , e..> , -<8 , . c 0 , -~-~ I, . " , -T-,- C , ., 0. 00 , ., " < , e..> .' , -' 0. w (9 e..> . . , - . w . 0 , ", ,,.>>\!>."" '\1<~\ ,J,S- ~ .11 , , ~ < (.) ~ , . . W C w ,,0 0. , , w , , I I I II " , ' I! I , , " , . 81' , , -...-,=..""' .,,,,,"",-.,,-.,,,,"," ,"-~"".""I." I . -""',""~~ I , . i Z , I ,. o . c' ::::It; 0.8 . , C 8 ". c.' . . , , i , , '- .. , o . w . " " " c' o . " 0 . . ~ . " , . , , . Jl""SOj~_~_ a'o'O'" .~ ,_J.S~N'~I' l! "[' 0, . '.~:? ~~ 'f :it! , a.o~ q" ~~I !lNmnd'.~a.~IV . , 1 I ._~ ,J ~ o . i'la;~ :J '" ~ "' :r;:;e ,., , , l "'~" .0< ;:!t- , o " ,. n bl...~ !1, , . , o , . , . ! . , . . o ,. ,- " 0' " . 8 ~ -,. l' c7i" " -l-I " " o' --------=-=' . , ","0", a'::i ~ '" ..' , . . o >--z 00 w- '00 00 "'0 c.~ , I: ,0 ~~ ,,,,;;I ,'. I'S .. . ~ " l!l ," " ., , u , I, .. l' o . , O>!~^31f\Oa (''''''01 """," , o '1- 00' '0 . g,K l~ , , " ." ., , ;-" j , o . o . . , , . . , , o . o " ,>..= 'I' e - , ~>- '0 " , '. dl'l ~"' <<;0) ~- - , ,_______________..J.--..-----~-- . ,. iLJ. III'" ~wd ,i~ J "'" ::is'' .,.. ".' - ,:.-~ ~ ,] '] ill'.' , . "L > ,...;:; ~ .., j 1j l! '~bY- ~ ~'i! ~ Zi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,J~~~~ '\ ~~r~ /fi:fS;~,,:: / > '! 'i:;;':; 00' u ~? ~z" !i~ '-' ,>0 " , . , 0 ~i>-~ -0< oJ""'" ~i - o " , . o , , , , g , o < < ----'-- --i!---;-;:;;;:M~\\- I --,- , ~~~ I ti :] ~!<' , .. I ~ c . 1"'1'" w 1-- ':;il- l ::! ';' :i L I ~>- I 1;;i 8 o o iUS 411 ,0 . .' 0.<5':.' .., . ' " ~ ~ ., ,. .. .,. j" '0 -<" , . >> " . . , Li-' . .. '" , ,-<' [...-w)) ,>,,' ~^'~<1 L lIg~.CN~^ ! > > Z " o u , 1" .' -." .. , ~f:l ., '. , ' .' '! Ii, 1 '" ow w w ~ -~--~/----- ,,p MEXICO _/- GUDF --~---- I , . 8. i'" -<'" " '1 ~:: ~ o , . , , . >, " '. c, , I . o a.. <( ~ <.9 z - z o N a.. <( ::2: z o - I- <( U o -l I ",I '" - ~ g; o N , ~, 0.' , 1); .. Z o h f- wi 0. o . -.....'" ... "':z:", ~e'<''''", ~..,>::t:u, ~"'II.l-< B;",<",,,, . )~~~. , 0 u, , . . , // ,/, " ,~,/. , ',r-). / ft-'~ ~/I . , , I I I I I , , _u_'-_' i -,. u-~rl".'r'~ ---- - - .----=-=-.....--- I '____ N o " I , ,-- , - . . " . . . , . o . ~~s ~~~ ~.o ~~"~ t;5~": ~Of-.~ "'u~o , , , "~I , "\~'- . 1,01, \ \, \ \ \ \1 .. , 1 1\\\ \ \ " \\ \4\': \ 'I \ 1,,\ \ ''I'' 'II'\"' \ ',' I \ ~\\ ' \' 'l r' \,>\ _.., " . \ ' \\:. \\ \: fr---\ \\:: \ :'.'i'\\ I 1'.., I I ,\", "I \ \1 I \ \\"\\'Jl, I\::i .,' I ',\"H~!['~" Ii ,,\"'_ f:~ ""\Vl::~, L. \'1",=',,/"1 : I ":1 :1 \ I I::: \ I'" :: \. "I " , F (:" \ I !'" I::: ilil Ii ::II[ I i'>l i ~i "iL I ,Il,d"r-~j' 'I' 111:n!11 "I, ;, IIII!I Il I, I'" " j ~i~li i III ~ :: \ il i:III!li~,''-< i~hllij'ld : III I ~ '11 : ':1 i il ~ 'I'" , '. . , , "I ~ '. ' 'f! "I " )111 ~,i ii' J,!! ~, IL.J Jli .~ 'r'. , . ',-1" '.> '..~.:..------- ~. ";--"X" - =-.- -- ,if--:-,..,.... -= .. --:.:'...,-..:...~"" I =-~~"";-~;;-,:-.7_ ' ',k Vi' / ":;;;"',:,"", \"dS~~1r 1$ , I :r~ ! I iL: ; i 1_, - I" ''''''I H"'I "'i 'I " " r'l"" " ,. :![ (7: !\ulil Ii , ~. , I . \ , , , , , , , , -, , , \ \ , , , , , , , , , , , , i , , I i I I I I I I I I \ , , L1J ~ z CJ U1 I- Z <( Z L1J I- a: <( L1J a: \ , \ , I , , I ..- .' ,. ..- . , , , , , . -~^~-=------'T-:-~' , ====~.::.-;.~~~~~~:.:~~-.:~~~:=~\ -_._- -.. .-.--.- ---, . , ',,. .. LL__ ..,~, _~.._..~~'H_" -- "..~..~~... ..- .~,.' _. -.....,....__.. , , >-- -0: '" '" E-<_ P><~ o~ Z=, o~ E-< zo -0: ~oc o'J m ~~ o. ,",ococ p..., U1~ n ~~ ~ ~o O~u "'~ m;; o >--" -0: '" '"' E-< -0: '" . , . N , o I [L If) z <( -' [L f- [L W U L o U 1 - . , .. \ ~~~j; 8 ~"'~..i ~ e~~~! 9 m~8jh HI , , , , , . , . " ~ .' ~, "';2l5 p ~ ~. ~ ~;!ihi I ~ ~ =. H l . ! ~ I ~ ~ q~. ~;. i! ;Iip~~ l ~i~Bi u-o/ - OLD ~._~" ,-,."--~~ Buildings 4 and 5 are designed in such a way that there are two building front facades on each of the buildings. One of the front building facades is oriented towards a parking lot. The other front building ti19ade is oriented towards the road right-of-ways. In addition to the existing wall signage for each of the internal units that are currently oriented towards the parking lot, the applicant is seeking to provide additional wall signage for each of the internal units (noted as buildings 4 and 5 on the Site Plan) that are oriented towards the road right-of-way. (Please refer to the Aerial below and Attachment A: Perspective and Attachment B: Photos.) As previously stated, the requested variance is from Section 5.06.04.F.4. of the Land Develop- ment Code (LDC) which allows one (I) wall, mansard, canopy or awning sign for each unit in a multi-occupancy parcel to allow two (2) wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs per unit in a multi-occupancy parcel. The result will be that each of the units will have a wall sign facing towards the parking lot and a wall sign facing towards the road right-of-way. BUILDINGS 4 and 5 road right-oC-way facades: proposed wall signs AERIAL PHOTO SUBJECT PROPERTY SV-PL2009-1165 Date Revised: 11 ~ 12-09 Page 4 of 8 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: parking lot of the Gateway Shoppes at North Bay shopping center, with a zoning designation of Lawmetka Plaza PUD (Planned Unit Development) South: Wiggins Pass Road (CR 888) then an automobile dealership, with a zoning designation of C-4, General Commercial East: Tamiami Trail North (US 41), then a convenience store with a zoning designation of C-4, General Commercial West: parking lot of the Gateway Shoppes at North Bay shopping center, then a strip shopping center building, with a zoning designation of Lawmetka Plaza PUD (Planned Unit Development) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Designation, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP does not address individual Variance requests but focuses on the larger issue of the actual use. The Lawmetka PUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed use for the subject site is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, although the Variance request is not specifically addressed. ANALYSIS: Section 9.04.00 of the LDC gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 9.04.03.A through 9.04.03.H as general guidelines to assist in making a recommendation. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to the evaluative criteria and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics ofthe land, structure or building involved? Yes. The subject buildings noted on the Site Plan as buildings 4 and 5, as depicted on Attachment A, are designed in such a way that the front of the buildings are not oriented towards the road. The fronts of the buildings are inwardly oriented towards a parking lot. What would typically be rear facades of the subject buildings are finished as front facades facing towards a major arterial road, Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and Wiggins Pass Road (CR 888) as depicted on Attachment B. Therefore, the applicant is seeking to provide signage on these building facades that face toward the motorists traveling along these road right-of-ways. There are a maximum of 5 proposed wall signs for each building fa<;:ade in Building 4 and 5 that face towards the road right-of-ways. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which is the subject of the variance request? SV-PL2009-1165 Date Revised: 11-12-09 Page 5 of 8 ,- ..-..... '''.,- -"--~."<-,----,_.,--"-",,,,,,-"'- .. ',,__ __..'_.u.<_.__ _~'_'_'_ ~.^.."__.,~._.__._._., _..'_, ..-__." ~.~.,_'=,-~_~"_~,~_~,,"",_""''''''_'''''_____'''_"''._____H_~.".".__ No. There are no special conditions or circumstances in regards to the above criteria. The buildings are newly constructed. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? No. However, the applicant contends that if a literal interpretation of the LDC provision is applied, it will have an adverse effect on their ability to lease the tenant spaces. The tenants would have to choose between a wall sign facing towards along the road right of- way as depicted on Attachment C or a wall sign on the storefront facing towards the parking lot. d. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes. The purpose of the requested Sign Variance is to allow for additional wall signs that are otherwise not permissible by code. As previously stated, the additional wall signs would face a major arterial road, Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and Wiggins Pass Road (CR 888). These additional wall signs will mimic the wall signs on the storefronts facing towards the parking lot. If the Conditions of Approval recommended by StatT are followed, the reasonable use of land is possible. e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. A Variance by definition confers some dimensional relief from the zoning regulation, specific to a site. The granting of the Sign Variance request would allow for additional wall signs on each of the two building unit facades that face towards the road right-of-ways. This sign variance confers special privilege on the applicant. f. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare'! Yes. Section 5.06.0I.A. of the LDC states that the purpose and intent of the LDC relative to signage is to ensure that all signs are: I. Compatible with their surroundings; 2. Designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manncr that does not endanger public safety or unduly distract motorists; 3. Appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain; SV-PL2009-1165 Date Revised: 11-12-09 Page 6 of 8 4. Large enough to convey sufficient information about the owner or occupants of a particular property, the products or services available on the property, or the activities conducted on the property, and small enough to satisi)' the needs for regulation; 5. Reflective of the identity and creativity of the individual occupants. In staffs opinion, the request for the additional wall signs advances these objectives. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? No. There are no natural or physically induced conditions. h. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Yes. Approval of this Variance petition would be consistent with the GMP since it would not affect or change any of the GMP's requirements. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council does not normally hear Variance petitions and did not hear this petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for SV-PL2009-1165 revised on November 12,2009. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition SV- PL-2009-1165 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions of approval that have been incorporated into the attached resolution: I. The additional wall signs are limited to Building 4 and 5 unit facades facing towards Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and Wiggins Pass Road (CR 888). SV-PL2009-1165 Date Revised: 11-12-09 Page 7 of 8 ----'--,-_._-,.._._._-,~--- - - - "',,'- - ','''-'_~'_--_',,,,_,,,,,_.,,~_,.~'--''-'' --. ,....,~.""_~____.__~.,.._.._"_,._hW._...~H_..__._~_._O_.__..,_.______n__._.." PREPARED BY: CH, AICP. ER nov; ~ 2UY) DAtE REVIEWED BY: G:" RAYMO D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW II~"\-O,\ DATE 7Y). USAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1/ /r2/07 DATE APPROVED BY: ~~ PH K. SCHMIT , ADMINISTRATOR MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL I) COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: DATE MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Staff report for the December 3,2009 Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Tentatively scheduled for the January 26, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Attachment A: Perspective Attachment B: Photos SV-PL2009-1165 Date Revised: 11-5-09 Page 8 of 8 . "' . d ,'.. " ." .' SIGN VARIANCE REOUEST . '" _. -- - ,.. -> , 0,: I ' i :I,';!,'! , ": ! ili'llil 11,11'1 IHIII i :\j11i '1"'1' I i',_': 111:i'l = I il'llli'\~l : 'I I , I \ i I I I' I! I I I, : I I I I I . J I I' I I I' , I , I I I , " I " I , I , 1 . _.II '~,!,'-:;'.!,_(~F 1)- !,I ""'I',' " r" ,,;cr"} '.._ _' ,,J,_, I, ,J " ......... L:"-' """"1.' i .. _I"f___('\~:, ::::' -i _,' __ ,- "'I' ''''I u" ---L~:~,':.:..-=:_~=::::._,..~',:D:-~'" , "1 - 'II', .~], JC"- ~'I-{J'J"-C"'- ICo ,- - ':"" ::.;, (51': r.::.r-.l_ t. I"c,--,_l 1::._'1 ,_; n:)i'~ .. ------- ',.i'il' .,~ , (CT,;- C-.-.." --~,~,; "- , -f -,T;- C:-.! E,UiU'II.!G~; -':- .-): C.. -.. -.- ,/ -Q',ij , I , I __J. , . ------'.--.- , , I , ----- , I~.:-: /~ '0 -, i~' t,1 ., -, ,",' C lG',I.,~ ,::;r::: ",_, ,I'. ,_1'(, J. ./1." ,C'l_ r~c...__ .. , , , , .. , ( : "'" . co I : co: : .1' 0:::::" . .,1 Ull . lit : Ic:.i j~:, <:t:1 ., ~,' , OCT ! , , ~ , , V) l ., <t: I r\ ,0- 1 : /\ I, .,' V) 14l':~V ~ I~ 1 ~'v:~ co " ,..'~ c:> t,' -I ..J 3= 1 it',., I, t".-l 1 ~r,::i:>"': I'<':V!"_'-: 1 i 1-' .'~ 1 I : ~:_.: 1 - - ~ '1"--'_.. 1 ~--------------------------.y--I:"---_...--."t, ~..-." .. '.,' -.- ~," __n_~- ---.----nn---------i l/::m.n...____.\<:",,~ -~ U.S. 4 1 - - ~ _d.- i,' :-..~.~_ ~__________..____~~______________~__~________..______~_""____ ---- -'-.'--;:'7;;--"r:;' .'-: ; : I:." _______~ .:t, 'C'... ~ -- "-'~:;':::-':-i~=-'-! [ i i!':---::--:..~::~:-;'-" m'_________ __ ___::________-c:.-~,__.. m_m.-_::-":.-:::::__: m _-;~.-;:__- -~:..-__::::. , ". .: : ;,- ------- : ..: : :::- mm"'__ -~._'--,,----"--'~ -_..~---,-,=-~..~-~:?i : ~ 1hs___;;. -:;__ ._---_'_~,_ _~~__:__:Y::~__l.----:-;._l_ -:X~~______;.:~:~:.. -~.-; :'L:_~_')n :_--;C~'-_ 'L,'C'L'~~-'~'- ~'~'~'---::-"~"-'-'~'~'-.--~:i 1 ~!: -<if .@ -:;' -S" m___... '" ,;,::~:__:,;:- ;::;::-.~;:::::.:,;-:=~;;-:~-:::;--_:-.:;::.::..';:;;;. i! : ' f:t:7=';;;:;=:-::::--~~-::::-:;;::;-...:::-==-:;::-=-::::.=-:..:-=-:;::=-;:;;:.....~-~-- --- .-- ---~.-- ::' I .., ., :: .,. ." .' -- ,~ i .. ", <t. '0;-- ~:, -----~~--------~=..: . '..,: \ ~--------------~-----~-- - ---", . - .__n___. n_____n n, _ ____: ~\:' :' ; .' I " " , " " -----1 J_ I Ml(,,;\' "=J --,---- --nT , --- __L. -+, ~- , -'t i_I; , 'II '-+-- ~r~~~ ;,- 1.! " c - ~ h _~ '.~<"- b - I~V - -,,,,"... ,'," , ~I 4LlJJ ~ L:.l - w "" - -. ~ "! O'~ ~ -. J \ I t It , =i= '-+-- ~~ --0~ - ",,,,...-,,,.. ~" '" """"""'....,.,. .. . . "'.- ..... - .' ~------ ....-.. --...-..~-_.. h ! l~ .,..' . . . ~~--- ,-.. - -- ;.>-..-"')-------- / (': ___t__.;,..-'_____ , ~....J-'C-'--- . i I I ! , " ! --------------------! -. ---. ---.-- .,;d_____'_.~_~ _'_,', /. \ . ~- --,~-_..--...-~- ..I !.-:..;-----~----..:;.-=-.::::-=-____1-- , r------ '11.2.09 Attachment A ~. .."......___..~._..'o_~_....., .~,_.,_.._=._--,--~...,"'- ""~~..~,~'^-----_._.".._-,,-_._,_..-..--..- ~'_i.:i, j-'i>C, Proposed Wall Signs c~--....., ., :L ", "5~- ,,~'.,.c, F /f/ I , I I I I cX:::"'ll:,jc~ -~ -ikrC , , .C ~". ~ ~~ ,.--' ............. '. - ~ - .' .' " ',~ .' .-.... ", "'-. - .,/ .. ",. " .. ,<<'- ".r' 11_209 Attachment B . BUILD1NG 4- & 5 CORNER 1;;/";2"\', 11.2.09 Attachment C '''-'''--'~,-'*--~-''..''~-''-< -,_.~- ","'~,.-'..~~-~'- .._-,.....-.,.__.,~-~--~~._.., r I .,tlQrIGIM" . , I, I !'~I ., otCl!li . 'iO~ Meelin\'I~~ ~ " . A(frrlli1l'ahtion Butll:/lng,"" ~(~ ; 336, ~ :Jhlll,.... Florida, tD~UlI~r: I ~~~AJlI-l~l. O'cilflllolidl"''' 1 InC., ~nt8d by , JOhn P~ et;<:!hefty II P~,and !-Wgal'8l C. pariy, AlCP,I'OfWllaoIl- Miller 11lll., 18 reqU88tlng a etandard ~ fJQm tht ' '. GOlf ~~(GC) zoning dIt!triot to tlie ~, (AI zonIog dI8;lrlet.' ".... aub/8Ct, property, ,~g of \ 553,87:t ecl8B, Is llxlated on tl1a ~tiIII, 84IlIOI\ '. ==.:,=~~::~~:= VlII'd (dt;.11Inter8Ct1on. In Saotton 31,. rOwn~ 48 Souttt, ~ 27 ERsti OQIIlar County, FfllilPa. All int~ pqrt~ in iI1VIted to appelii' and be h9ard. tndlvld..-rIlJl"""r'a will ba IIrrtlt9l1: tq Ii min- utes on -.y iIIim. filqltrt wltll_ aI\ell ~lirnited to 10 mII\~ eIiih.,Per.ons who have beer) lIUjhorlzed to ~ .~ or organization shOultf limit their presentallon.to lerVlllnutee. Pensons wlahlnlito ha1.(t wrl,lten or ~'m8terla18 Incluc1e411 IrT the CCPe' agandapac~\UIIIll8Ubmlt 88ld metdl amll\lrn\ll'n of 10 dIIye ~~ ~.llI8p8Ot1va public'hearklg. WrIt- ten 'comrnerllllli~ \Ie f1~ wlthtlie Departrnant 01 ZonInli and:l.Mcl p.v.lopment Review /lrkIr to De./' cembar 3, .,.; 1n I\lrdar to be conaldered et tha pub- " lie h8l1r1ng.. All malar~ used'ln pIlI88ntallon before , tlie COPO will become a permanerrt part 01 tlie~ .. and will be 'available for presentation to the Board of County CommlsBloners, if applicable. I ! u >> >> _Q/I,.m~lD -. >> >> . . ....~_1II -. 1'" . I 4 _....EIf.fIII _""'_Ill _...DI'.... _"'.__ _. ....., ....,...- -II Any person' who dl!Cldes to appeal a declslotl of the CCPC will "..d a record' 01 tha pi'oc~lngs Pertatn- \ ing theretO; and therefore may need to ensure that a ., verllatlmrecord oHha proceedings is rIlede, WhIch !. includes ,!II te8llmbny and evidence upon whk;h the appeal Is to be based. Collier Cqunty Planning. Commission ColUer Co!Il!ty, Florida Mark P. SlrBin, Chairman AGENDA ITEM 9-B SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 3,2009 SUBJECT: RZ-2008-AR-13951, OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, INC. PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Owner: Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc. 9405 Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. Naples, FL 34120 Agents: Margaret C. Perry AICP Senior Project Planner Wilson Miller 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 REQUESTED ACTION: John Passidomo, Esquire Chefi)' Passidomo 821 5th Ave. South Naples, FL 34102 The petitioner wishes to rezone 553.67* acres from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Agriculture (A) Zoning District for a project known as the Olde Florida Golf Club. PROJECT STATUS: The CCPC heard this petition on April 2, 2009, and by a unanimous vote (8 to 0) recommended forwarding this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCe) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: Supplemental Staff Report for 12/3/09 CCPC Olde Florida Golf Club, RZ-2008-AR-13951 Revised 10/30/09 Page 1 of6 -'--'.-'-""'-"'--.-.-'--..-----..--'--- -~'_.~,- '. .. , -~..~_.._,<. ".,- .... I. The property will retain the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for its golf courses, and it shall be subjcct to the rules and regulations for golf course operations for properties designed as neutral lands under the County's Growth Management Plan. 2. No density has been awarded by virtue of approval of this rezone. 3. Any uses or changes shall be brought back to the Collier County Planning Commission in the form of a Planned Unit Development process for review and approval of all categories as if it were a Planned Unit Development. 4. The setback on the western boundary of the property shall be 100 feet to allow County to acquire easements, if needed, in the future. The petition was scheduled for a June 9, 2009 Board of County Commissioner's (BCC) hearing, but the petitioner submitted a continuance request on April 30, 2009, asking that the petition be continued to September 9, 2009. The petitioner stated that the continuance was being requested to allow the petitioner to coordinate "with staff to work throughlunderstand the CCPC recommendation." (Sec Attachment #1). The petitioner has indicated that he wishes to have the CCPC re-visit stipulations 2 and 3 that were included in the CCPC recommendation because he believes the stipulation wording is confusing. In any case, the petitioner has submitted a Conceptual Rezone Master Plan dated October 2009 (See Attachment #2), to address the CCPC concerns. The CCPC discussion at the April 2, 2009 hearing and the subsequent stipulation #3 indicated that that the CCPC did not appear to have any comfort level without some details about the proposed development (See Attachment # 3, Excerpt from the April 2,2009 CCPC minutes). In response to Stipulation #3, the petitioner depicts a "future development envelope" on the Conceptual Rezone Site Plan within which any additional permitted uses, such as dwelling units could be constructed. This document includes the applicable property development regulations of the Rural Fringe Zoning District from the Land Development Code (LDC) to which development on this site would adhere. ATTACHED INFORMATION: The Staff Report prepared for the April 2, 2009 Planning Commission meeting is attached (See Attachment #4) along with a draft Ordinance that includes the CCPC original recommended stipulations (see Attachment #5). Another draft ordinance (see Attachment #6) has been provided that removes the original stipulations 2 and 3 and renumbers the remaining stipulations. In addition, the supplemental information provided by the petitioner is attached to include: 1) A Conceptual Rezone Master Plan dated, October 2009 (See Attachment #2) 2) A letter dated August 20, 2009 (see Attachment #7) Supplemental Staff Report for December 3, 2009 CCPC Olde Florida Golf Club, RZ-2008-AR-139S1 Revised November 3, 2009 Page 2 of 6 ANALYSIS: Environmental Review: Environmental staff has reviewed this petition and has concerns about the document that has been provided by the petitioner. Section 10.02.02 A 7 h of the Collier County LDC lists exceptions to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for conventional rezones without a site plan. A conventional rezone with no site plan or proposed development plan. This exemption does not apply to lands that include any of the following zoning, overlays or critical habitats: Conservation (CON), Special Treatment (c':;T), Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), Natural Resource Protection Areas (N RP A's), Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Sending Lands, Xeric Scrub, Dune and Strand, Hardwood Hammocks, or any land occupied by listed species or defined by an appropriate State or Federal agency to be critical foraging habitat for listed species. This rezone petition no longer meets this exemption. An EIS review and approval by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), including preserve designation, should be required at this time since the location of required preservation may significantly alter the site plan provided by the applicant. Zoning Review: The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staff has reviewed the concerns raised by Environmental staff and the information provided by the petitioner. Staff has also reviewed the minutes of the April 2, 2009 CCPC hearing. Zoning staff recognizes the concerns raised by Environmental staff, but believes Note #5 on the conceptual plan makes it clear that it is not the petitioner's intention to side-step any environmental issues with the submission of this conceptual plan. It is staffs opinion that the petitioner is attempting to reach a compromise between the CCPe's request for more detail, while taking advantage of the LDe's allowance for conventional rezoning requests wherein a petitioner has the opportunity to rezone without strict adherence to a detailed site plan. Furthermore, the petitioner acknowledges that any subsequent developments applications would include an EIS and future projects would be required to undergo EAC review. The petitioner wants the CCPC to remove stipulations #2 and #3. The petitioner believes that the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and LDC offer sufficient regulations and safeguards to address the development of the subject tract if the rezone to the Agricultural Zoning District is approved without those stipulations. The petitioner wishes to have Stipulation #2 removed as it is unnecessary because no specific density was sought as part of this rezoning request thus the GMP requirements would be the prevailing document to address density when further development order approvals (beyond rezoning) are sought. The developer would have to comply with whatever density regulations are in effect at that time. The petitioner wishes to have Stipulation #3 removed, finding that it is confusing given the type of request, i.e., a "conventional" rezone request, not a PUD rezone request. Requiring future development order submittals (SDP andlor Plats) to be approved by the CCPC "for review and Supplemental Staff Report for December 3, 2009 CCPC Olde Florida Golf Club. RZ-2008-AR-139S1 Revised November 3, 2009 Page 3 of 6 approval of all categories as if this petition were a Planned Unit Development is a confusing stipulation. Staff notes that the BCC has not adopted any fee to cover the cost of this type of application and there are no review criteria in the LDC with which to review a rezone petition as if it were a PUD. A project either is, or is not, a PUD. In this case the project is not a PUD. In any case, SDP and Plats are NOT reviewed by the CCPC for other for projects, whether the zoning designation is PUD or some conventional zoning district. The BCC has implemented the LDC which contains procedures for staff to review applications seeking development approval review, such as the SDP process or the platting process. The SDP process is administrative, allowing staff to review the submittal for compliance with all appropriate regulations. The SDP procedures contain adequate safeguards to address all site- related issues. Development of the site would need to be compliant with all requirements. In the platting process, while the majority of the review is done administratively, the final plat does require BCC approval. There is no need to require another review process for this project; the regulations now in effect should adequately address and protect the public health, safety and welfare. As noted above, the petitioner placed the applicable property development regulations of the Rural Fringe Zoning District from the LDC on the site plan. Again, this is only a reiteration of the requirements of the LDC; it is no more than, or no less than, what any similarly situated developer would be required to comply. The requirements would be applicable whether they are contained on an exhibit provided by the petitioner or not. Stipulation #1, although reiterations of LDC and GMP, is a site-specific stipulation related to a unique circumstance on the subject site. Stipulation #4 is a site-specific stipulation related to a unique circumstance on the subject site as well. The petitioner does not object to stipulations #1 and #4. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed this supplemental staff report for RZ-2008-AR-13951 revised on November 3,2009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward a recommendation of approval of Petition RZ-2008-AR-1395 1 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). subject to the following stipulations: 1. The property will retain the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for its golf courses, and it shall be subject to the rules and regulations for golf course operations for properties designed as neutral lands under the County's Growth Management Plan. Supplemental Staff Report for December 3,2009 CCPC Dlde Florida Golf Club, RZ-2008-AR-13951 Revised November 3, 2009 Page 4 of 6 2. The setback on the western boundary of the property shall be 100 feet to allow County to acquire easements, if needed, in the future. Attachments: #1 Petitioner's Continuance Request #2 Conceptual Rezone Master Plan dated October 2009 #3 Excerpt from the April 2, 2009 CCPC minutes #4 April 4, 2009 CCPC Staff Report #5 Draft Ordinance with the original CCPC recommended stipulations #6 Draft Ordinance with REVISED stipulations #7 Petitioner's letter dated August 20, 2009 Supplemental Staff Report for December 3, 2009 CCPC Olde Florida Golf Club, R2-2008-AR-139S1 Revised November 3, 2009 Page 5 of6 - --'''-'''--,"._-_..._.._."..~......,,~-,_..--,. -_._.~-,.^,.""" '._-.".~._. ~~-----~-'-'.'-"- PREPARED BY: !Od.,'/;01 KA D ELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: /0 sO DA 0, . "" RA YMON V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW USAN M. ISTEN~;, DIRECTOR -.1L/-tj~ r DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: tJ PH K. SCHMITT ADMINISTRA TOR ATE MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the January 26, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: "" MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Supplemental Staff Report for December 3, 2009CCPC Olde Florida Golf Club, RZ-2008-AR-13951 Revised October 27,2009 Page 6 of 6 er County , ~"",,,,~lffl!h.. "",...,<,,"","f,.hL dliliXt"",,,,, -.,u=. .. ~_tl"W~""~. , "'-~~,~''Wimi REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OR WITHDRAWAL CHECK ONE: CONTINUANCE / 'v WITHDRAWAL If a continuance is requested, please indicate: length of time: to: Cf . .. ....f.) ...,! i (<, --C.''; ^ , OR indefinite: From: Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners v- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Date of Scheduled Hearing: ~) 'J.."( 'I . Applicant/Project Name: (.Illc-. 6[,,,-/, c.'.t/r ((.C. Application/Petition number: ij;:..:;C( .'?- jJ!?" /;<,'jJ! . i Type of Application (examples: Rezoning, Conditional Use or Variance) Reason for Request: '//((; i.,': ,) ';1-:i(-/- /, i .,'_I.J ., /)C.lG;n~:_ . . ! ". '>, '(~ I" .- j, . . ;' ( IC ,.-t:o ~";" f;'-')i(l'ild 1.-:,',- ',/ /(1'(..' tiN_it ""f};-'- "/ I/~il"';) UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, AND PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 92.525, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING REQUEST AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. ,rf'J '. .y' /, I '/'?"~U,"" (O<:/,l'\1 SIGNAT E OF APPytANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT 0'~f :()'J -.._>c- _' , DATE lJ" (,7(1 ref PRINTE:P NAME -;1 rei" , .' ( \1 I , . , Address: .5)(.(.. s(~~/'7 (u'/tj';,,,Jc J.L Ai" It- s /:'2.- ,3'llt"cfd' r C1ty, State Zip (- '(1.... 7L'L!r.) Phone number . y ~ ... 1 .~ /....-. / I, )" ) / f tv ',/ '. j G:;.. Fax number G:\current\deselem\REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OR WITHDRAWAL.doc Attachment #1 _,., ,>~~",.>~'~_"""""-'.._.w..,"_~.... _... '-.., ... ......_-'<..._.....,...__.__._..._.. ._....__ , . VACANT (A-MHO) . , --- 15' TYPE "B" (LANDSCAPE BUFFER PER LOC.. __,_____. _ - . rtROPERTY BOUNDARY / (TYP.) -~~- - i '- I I I I . EXISTlN"G . GONSERVATJON . . . . . EASEMENT ..----.. . " . ~ . - - . - . - . ',- - -- .~~.' PER LOC, NO BUFFER REQUIRED . ""'... t ')j /1 /. " -'-' VACANT (A-MHO) ,..."""" """'"'- ..... """""""'" FUTURE OEVEWPMENT ENVELOPE /C-. EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT PER lOC, NO BUFTER REQUIRED } / (, , ",1, l----.' ~~_\:~ .:,="'" ~~rJrUD[DWrrHlIlCONSERVATIdll . , , GOLF CLUB OF THE EVERGLADES (A) GOLF COURsi:SoUNOAR"I' I i \ VACANT (A-MHO) INN" DEVELOP"'''' I - ACCESS I , "V._' . >:' / /~ ,".". -" ",' -""'.'- , ','-", PER LOC, NO BUFFER REQUIRED EXISTING CLUBHOUSE AND t.WNTENANCE FACIUTIES . EXISTING OLOEf"tORIOA GOLF CLUB (To REMAIN) , ',;\ , \. -,.;,' . \ ':1 j,' , \ I , , ., VANOERBILT BEACH Rlml lARKIN, I ~ '-",. y ~..: "-J.,__ :;.-" -- -.--~~=="- " W'LL "'- " PER LOC, NO BUFfER REQUIRED wm WEU lS'T'fP("B" LANDSCAPE BUrFER PERLDC. wm PER LDC, NO BUFFER REQUIRED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (E) Attachment #2 PROJECT CLIENT. OLDE OLDE FLORIDA FLORIDA GOLF GOLF CLUB CLUB yo Planners. Engineers. Ecotogsts . Surveyors. Landscape Architects. Transporlalion Conslitanls Miller _.".,./tu:.tLC-alIXIt'\l 1IIIooi'''r.flC-CerliIcII~ofAufxlril'dMI43 SCALl SEe N, LS. TWP RG[ DATE OCT_ 2009 REV NO ""1 M.I" I p<lo.Jtn "10 'NDEX NO, "Ison tier, nc N0107-015-0D1 DD-N0107-00.J G'~WN ~Yi[MP ~o SHEET ~O 3200Baky IIlne, Svil1I200 . Naples, Florida 34105"8507 . Phone 239-649-4040 . Fax 239-263-6494 . Web-Sile wwwwlsonmi{e,-,com J.M L./1322 1 OF 2 r..'r;; ':;'~'. lOng - 14 (12- .)L:C>-1FII/\ [NC\;>JC,'D7\D:J.:.-CFGC ('ezone)\REVC1\DD-N010/-00J001-Adwg &LEGEND NOTES: & EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT 1, SINGLE FAMilY RESIDE.NTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND OTHER USES LISTED IN LDC SECTION 2.03_08.A.3.a.(1) ARE PERMITTED AS OF RIGHT ON THE LAND. ACCESSORY AND CONDITIONAL USES ARE PERMITTED AS AND TO THE EXTENT DESCRIBED IN LOC SECTION 2.03.0B.A.3.o.(2) AND (3). DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE DENSITY, DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN STANDARDS CONTAINED IN lOC SECTION 2.03.0B.A.3.b. AND c. AND THE NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION AND USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN LOC SECTION 203.08AJ.d. AND e., COPIES OF WHICH ARE INCLUDED ON THIS PLAN AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. 2. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES SHALL BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF 25 FEET FROM PRESERVES. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHALL BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM PRESERVES, 3. THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS CONCEPTUAL REZONE MASTER PLAN, SHALL BE CONSIDERED CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. THE DESIGN, LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LAND IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED AT SITE PLAN APPROVAL OR SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL. ,"" "',. ,"'," , ,L', "", EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION WITHIN GOLF COURSE I I FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE 4. LAND USE AREAS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO RELOCATION/CHANGE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING, ,~t '-:-1 EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION NOT INCLUDED WITHIN CONSERVATION EASEMENT 5. THE AREA DEPICTED AS ~ FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE" IS THE AREA WITHIN WHICH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY WILL OCCUR. THE DELINEATION AND DESIGNATION OF A PRESERVE AREA WILL BE MADE AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. v & NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATION GOLF COURSE BUFFER ZONE REQUIRED EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION WITHIN GOLF COURSE r 88.4 ACRES 51 0 ACRES - FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ACCESS CONSERVATION EASEMENT - EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION OUTSIDE GOLF COURSE ,.--.,,--. :I:: 250 ACRES VEGETATION :I:: 389.4 ACRES PROJECT BOUNDARY REOUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION (60%) ..-----r. :1:233.5 .-.--. . .. ACRES . "--' ,,--.. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREA PROVIDED EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION WITHIN GOLF COURSE I' _.X 88.4 ACRES 51.0 ACRES EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT POTENTIAL NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION AREA (INCLUDES 150' BUFFER. EXCLUDES NON-NATIVE VEGETATION) :I: 94.2 ACRES TOTAL TO BE PROVIDED :I: 233.5 ACRES NOTE: THE ABOVE NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY VARY AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. FINAL ACREAGE OF RETAINED NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 50% OF THE EXISTING ONSITE NATIVE VEGETATION (i.e., :1::233.5 ACRES) PROJECT OLDE OLDE FLORIDA FLORIDA GOLF GOLF CLUB CLUB CLIENT Miller _.".,-R.U:JLc-ro:JWV ~.D;.'Cerl.ibIterA~.iOOl4:J SCALE, m ;wc RGE DATE. OCT. 2009 REV NO. PROJECT NO. N0107-015-Q01 ORWN BY!EMP NO 3200 8aJey lane, Suite 200 . Naples, Florida 34105---8507. Phone 239-649--4040 . Fu 239-263-6494 . Web-Sits WWIf,1I'i'9tlI'lIl1Ier.Com J.M.L,j1322 Nov 02. 2009 14:08: JLlGH1ElIX:\ ENG\NO 107\ 003 orGC_ ('elone)\REVO I \DO Ramer, . Engineers. Ecologists. Surveyors. Landscape Architects . Transportation COMJltanls WilsonMifler, Inc. N.T.S. INDEX NO: DD-N0107-00.3 SI-fEETNQ: 2 or.3 NOlO? 003001 Adwg "_......._.'__"w,,,._.._,,'_.__ .........__ LDC SECTION 2.03.08.A. b. Density. (1) Maximum gross density, The maximum gross density in neutral lands shall not exceed one dwelling unit per five gross ocres (0.2 dwelling units per acre), except that the maximum gross density for those legal nonconforming lots or parcels In existence os of June 22. 1999, sholl be One dwelling unil per 101 or porcel. (2) Residential clustering. Clustering of residential development IS allowed and encouroged. Where clustered development IS employed. it sholl be In occordonce with the following proviSions' (0) If within the boundaries of the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District. os delineated on the Urban-Rurol Fringe Transition Zone Overloy Mop In the Future land Use Element of the GMP, and consistent with the prOVISions of the Potoble Woter and Sanitary Sewer Sub-elements of this Plan, central water and sewer shall be e~tended to the project. Where County sewer or water serVices may not be available Concurrent with development In neutral lands, interim private water and sewer facilities may be approved (b) The clustered development sholl be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: I. protection for listed species habitat; II. preservation of the highest quality native vegetation III. connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or preservation areas on adjacent development; b? and IV, creal;on, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. (c) The minimum project sile shall be at least 40 acres. c. Dimensional and design standards. Dimensional and DeSign Standards set forth In section 4.02.01 of this Code sholl apply to all development In neutral lands. e~cept for development utililing the residential clustering prOVISIons In section 2.03.08 (A)(3)(b)(2) above. In the case of such clustered development, the following dimensional standards sholl apply to 011 permitted hOUSing structure types, accessory. ond conditional uses: (1) Development that IS Not Clustered: (a) Minimum lot area' 5 Acres. (b) Minimum lot width 165 Feet (c) Minimum yard Requirements. I Front yard: 50 feet II. Side yard: 30 feet III. Rear yard. 50 feet IV. Nonconforming lots In e~istence os of ,June 22, 1999' 0) Front yard: 40 leet b) Side yard: 10 percent 01 lot width. not to e~ceed )0 leet on each Side c) Rear yard: 50 feet. (2) Development that IS Clustered. (0) Minimum lot area. 4,500 square feel. (b) Ma~imum lot area: One Acre. (c) Minimum lot width: Inlerlor lots 40 leet. (d) Ma~imum lot width: 150 feet (3) Height Limitations. (a) Principal; 35 feel. (b) Accessory: 20 feet, e~cept for screen enclosures, which may be the same height as the principal structure. (c) Golf course/community clubhouses: 50 feet. (4) Floor area. The minimum floor area for each dwelling unit sholl be 800 square feet (5) Parking. As required in Chapter 4. (6) Landscaping As required In Chapter 4. (7) Signs' As required In section 5.0600. d. Native vegetation relent ion Native vegetation shall be preserved os set forth In Chapter 4. e. Usable open space. (1) Projec:ts of 40 acres or more In Slle sholl provide 0 minimum 01 70% usoble open space. (2) Usable open space includes active or passive recreation areas such as parks, playgrounds, golf courses, waterways. lakes, nature trails, and other similar open spaces. Usable open space shall also include areas set aside for conservation or preservation of native vegetation and landscape areas (3) Open water beyond the perimeter 01 the Site, street right-ai-way, e~cept where dedIcated or dona led lor public uses. driveways, off-street parking and loading areas, sholl not be counted towards required usable open space & SITE SUMMARY OPEN SPACE AREA TOTAL PROJECT AREA ",- GOLF COURSE --,--' , 1___.__ 553.7 ACRES TOTAL PROJECT AREA 553.7 ACRES -. ---...--.....----. -.- REQUIRED OPEN SPACE (707.) ~. 387.6 ACRES 274.5 ACRES - EXIS~ING GOLF COURSE/CLUBHOUSE --- --- I EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION WITHIN_ GOLF-COURS"t_ (TO REMAIN) -- --- - EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT ' 146.7 ACRES EXISTING OPEN SPACE PROVIDED (GOLF COURSE) 88.4 ACRES ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 113.1 ACRES 51.0 ACRES -,-- FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREA OTHER AREA (OUTSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA) I -+ I 192.2 ACRES FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREA 100' SETBACK 12.1 ACRES 37.6 ACRES PROJECT' OLDE OLDE FLORIDA FLORIDA GOLF GOLF CLUB CLUB CLIENT Wii ... Miller _./><-R.WU:-a:tII:IPIl ~r.nc.'CeriiIIcoIeO/Al.f>orjz.ti""143 ,.. P1afVJer8 . Engneers . Ecologists. Surveyors. Lgndscapt= Archifecls . Transportation Consullants Wi/8onMiller, inc. SCALE N.T S. DATE OCT. 2009 REV NO SEe TWPRGE Nov 02, 2009 - 1,j 08 PROJ(C1NO N0107-015-001 ORWN[jy/rMPNO J.M.L./1322 INDO NO DD-ND107-00.J SHf(l NO :3 or:3 3200 Baley lane. Suite 200 . Napit!s, Florida 34105-8507 . Phone 2J9-649-404C. Fv 2J9--UJ-6494 . Web-Site www.wH8onmIer.com JLIGHTfLlx \fNG\ NO 1 Q7\ DIL). OrCC_(rezonc> )\REV01 \ 00 N01 07- 003001 -A.dwg . , . " " Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-13951, OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, the Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., represented by John Passidomo. It's on the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be swom in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had one or two conversations with John Passidomo regarding the issues today on the agreement from the past. And we will certainly be discussing all those today. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move forward. John, it's all yours. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morrung, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth Avenue South, in the City of Naples. Our firm represents Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc. in agenda Item 9.C before you for consideration this morrung. Our project team is comprised of Project Planner Margaret Perry, Transportation Engineering Jeff Perry and Senior Ecologist Tom Trettis of Wilson-Miller. All are available to respond to any technical questions in their respective fields of expertise. Olde Florida Golf Club member, corporate secretary and owner's representative, Bill Barton, and Olde Florida Golf Club General Manager Tom Wildenhaus, are also available to address any operational, historical or practical questions you may have concerrung the property. The subject property is comprised of approximately 554 acres of land located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, two miles east of Collier Boulevard. It is designated rural fringe mixed use district neutral land by the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, and contains an 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, supporting facilities and open space. Permitted uses as of right within the rural fringe neutral land designation include agriculture, single-family homes and golf courses. Back in 1991, prior to the creation of the rural fringe, at a time when Collier County's appetite for golf courses and golfers seemed insatiable, the property was rezoned from agricultural to golf course, and the existing golf course was thereafter built in what was then assumed to be the first oftwo golf courses on the property. Today of course two golf courses no longer make sense, as changing conditions render the golf course zoning, which only allows golf course, clubhouse, maintenance facilities and a caretaker's residence archaic. The petition before you therefore proposes to rezone the property from golf course to rural fringe, neutral land agriculture to achieve three principal objectives: First, to align the zoning of a land with permitted uses as of right under the future land use designation for the property. Second, to ensure compatibility with adjacent agriculturally zoned land. Attachment #3 Page 1 of 32 __ ',.~._,.n_'..,,__ '.._,...'~~___'""' ___ --,"","'._~."-- _~_"'~_"'."~_'___'__" M'.'__' Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club And third, while continuing use of the part of the property for the existing golf course, to provide flexibility for a broad range of permitted uses to be able to respond to market conditions as they emerge for the balance of the property. No development plans are proposed because at this stage none are being considered. A standard rezone application that does not require a master plan is therefore presented to you for consideration this morning. We appreciate staffs recommendation of approval and respectfully request your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners of approval. I'll be happy to try to respond to any questions you may have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was short, John. Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, sir. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Good morning, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you be kind enough to illustrate there n we have that on the computer screen. Would you show us where the houses would be built, if you know? MR. P ASSIDOMO: We don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you know whether or not the golf course will be impacted as a result of this building? MR. PASSIDOMO: We assume not, but we don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it is possible that the golf course can be reconfigured, or it could be -- I think there are two golf courses there, right? MR. PASSIDOMO: There is one existing golf course. There were two originally contemplated. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Oh, I see. MR. P ASSIDOMO: But there's one existing. And there's no market for a second golf course. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Well, I was concerned whether or not you were going to reconfigure the golf course and move it around in anticipation of putting housing in. MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, Mr. Murray. The likelihood of that is extraordinarily remote. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. And let me see if! had one more question. Oh, yes. In utilities review, I noted that -- okay, the county may not be in a position yet to move out there with sewer and water and so forth. I think they have water, they don't have sewer. How will the -- what is it, one to five acres? Will they put in a septic system now or can they facilitate by also introducing sewer, piping? Is that part of the plan? MR. P ASSIDOMO: There is no plan. There's nothing on the radar screen. And they'll abide by the regulations as they're in place at the time when they're prepared to move forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would become an additional expense at a later time. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably considerable as well. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question. It's probably my own ignorance, but why are you going to agricultural zoning as opposed to a PUD? It's not that you're contemplating farming the area. Could you explain that to me, please? MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Midney. Attachment #3 Page 2 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club Well, we wanted to do three things, as we indicated: Most importantly to align the uses in the zoning with the uses as contemplated for neutral lands under the Growth Management Plan. And those permitted uses as of right include not only agriculture but also the single-family dwelling units and the golf courses. The existing zoning land only permits golf courses as a permitted use. We want to be able at the appropriate time, when the market can accommodate it, be able to respond to a demand for any of the uses within the rural lands agricultural zoning designation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I had another question, too. Under maximum density, it's one dwelling unit per five gross acres, but for maximum lot sizes only one acre. Could you explain that discrepancy. MR. P ASSIDOMO: You may want to ask staff. That's what the code says. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is the tax burden on that property at the moment, and how will that be affected with a change of zoning? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Kolflat, I don't know what the tax burden is. I think I may have the property appraiser's record somewhere. But unlike the typical kind of situation where you can eventually expect to see when you down-zone -- when the property's zoned agriculture, the amount of uses are reduced. Here the amount of uses would actually be increased. So we have no way of knowing how the property appraiser will look at this piece of property. But the appraisal will not -- the appraised value will not go down because the amount of uses that actually are permitted will go up. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the taxes would go down, would they not, with this change? MR. PASSIDOMO: No, sir. No, sir. Because right now the property can be used for only golf course and related facilities. Upon the standard rezone, the property could be used for golf course but could also be used for agriculture and for single-family dwelling units. So there's no reason to believe the taxes would go down. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Access to the site right now is through an extension of essentially lining up with Vanderbilt Beach Road; is that right? MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's right, Mr. Schiffer. There's I think an Existing Conditions Access Management Plan that Mr. Perry may have submitted. I'd be happy to display it, if you'd like to see it. But there's a series of publicly dedicated right-of-ways and private easements that lead in that two miles from Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And does this property have -- in the extension ofVanderbiIt, where will this property be located, on the other side of the canal or on -- in other words, where does the VanderbiIt extension go in relation to this property? MR. PASSIDOMO: There is also a Future Conditions Access Management Plan that's in this submittal. And I'll be happy to display that, if you'd like to see it. Attachment #3 Page 3 of 32 .....,._",._--","_....'".,>-,._"~,._._., '., .___..,~~~...'w~_~~._,.___~_,._,._....".,_.,"..~.~._..~-,.-_. .. Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club You can see that. I think what you see there is the future condition with the realigned Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, and then a connector illustrated in the yellow highlight, connecting that to the existing right-of-way pattern that runs east/west. And again, that's in the materials I think that were circulated to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's in the packet? Anybody else find it? You said it's in here somewhere? COMMISSIONER CARON: It's attached, Commissioner Schiffer, to a sheet that is labeled excerpt from January 28th, 2009, letter from the agent responding to county questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what's going to happen, the extension is going to hop across the canal, and you'll be on the other side of it, as opposed to running -- why wouldn't it be -- well, I think that's a -- never mind. Logic long gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, can you put that thing that was back up here up there? Ray, or whoever had the overhead on there, could you leave the one that was on the overhead on? I don't know who had it. No, not that one, the original one you started with. Okay. That piece of property is owned by -- how is that n I think 1 read the disclosure, 275 different people? MR. P ASSIDOMO: 275 different people are the shareholders in the corporate entity of Olde Florida Golf Club that's the lot holder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And are they divided up into lots so you know what they own, or they just own a piece of that whole thing? MR. PASSIDOMO: The corporation owns-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, the corporation. MR. PASSIDOMO: The shareholders own the corporation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, Mr. Murray, I know the answer, I wanted it for the record from Mr. Passidomo. Thank you. Through their ownership process, when did that corporation -- when was that corporation formed as the owner of this property? MR. P ASSIDOMO: I frankly don't know. I think the property was acquired in two different parts, one in 1993 and one in 1997. But beyond that, I don't know. Mr. Barton's here and he could give you some historical perspective, if you'd like him to testifY . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know when the corporation was formed? MR. PASSIDOMO: No, sir, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the agreement that was signed by this group for the Ordinance 91-16, it says the -- it's on Page 3 of the recorded instrument. On the top on number four, last item said n it said, the applicant should be advised that future land development activities in the area may be subject to future land use control, consistent with the above regulations. Attachment #3 Page 4 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club I've heard you talk, and you keep referring to this as going back to ago land. Well, this is a neutral area in the rural fringe. I'm sure you mean neutral area, is that -- it's going back to neutral lands designation? MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, it is. It is clearly designated neutral lands right now. I didn't mean to suggest it's going back to the same agricultural zoning it enjoyed in 1991. It's going back to a newly created land use zoning category which is neutral land agriculture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a series of other questions, but I've certainly got to get transportation up in a minute. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant shall grant a maintenance easement to South Florida Water Management District/Big Cypress Basin over that portion of this property which lies within the needed 20-foot maintenance easement along the Cypress Canal, measured from the top of bank. Do you know if that's been done? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, I don't. I assume it has been done, but I have no reason to believe it has not been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a paragraph in this agreement concerning the roadway, and it concerns Vanderbilt Beach Road. And I notice from one of the aerials provided in the package that Vanderbilt Beach Road extends from 951 straight over until it hits your property, and then it has to cross the canal. And I'm not sure after that where it goes, because my maps don't go that far. But based on a reduced aerial, I notice that the other properties to the east have land to the south of them, it looks like enough to fit the road. Yours seem to be the only problem in that extension. And that extension, by going across the canal, has created additional cost for bridges and taken out people's homes. Yet in your agreement that was signed -- and this is more of a question for staff, I don't know how it's going to affect you yet, but I want to make sure I state it for the record so staff can explain it when I get transportation up here. The petitioner shall extend the Vanderbilt Beach Road from its terminus to the project's west property line. Such construction shall be in accordance with county standards as set forth in Ordinance 82-91, in the subdivision regulation's ordinance 76.6. The roadway shall parallel the southern boundaries of Sections 35 and 36, Township 48 South, Range 26 East and positioned adjacent to the Cypress Canal to the south. And it looks like that's what was done. So transportation will have to explain this, but it's apparent that the road was intended to go straight through, but for some reason they didn't go through your property. I think that's convenient for you. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but I want to understand staffs reasoning on that. So that's why I belabored this point a little bit, to explain to you where I'm going to go next with them. I see Mike Green back there, he's going to have fun with that. The staff report says you intend to preserve the 18-hole golf course and permit the addition of up to 110 single-family homes. Do you know how that lID was arrived at? How did you come up with that number? MR. P ASSIDOMO: It's a function of the zoning under the proposed zoning district, one unit per five acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you figure that's five acres for that? Because according to the neutral lands LDC requirements under density, maximum gross density: The maximum gross density in neutral lands shall not exceed one dwelling unit per five gross acres (.2 dwelling units per Attachment #3 Page 5 of 32 ".___. -">0' .~._._."__ __',",__._.U .,. _ ~..h.,....."__,_,,~_ Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club acres), except that the maximum gross density for those legal nonconforming lots or parcels in existence as of June 22nd, 1999 shall be one dwelling unit per lot or parcel. Now, your testimony was that that was one parcel by a corporation prior to '99. So that means you get one unit. I'm just wondering how you get around that. MR. PASSIDOMO: No, sir, I don't think we get one unit. The parcel is 554 acres. One unit per five acres is 110 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well maybe J -- or somebody at staff can explain that to me. Because if you get more units, I think you'd have to go into some kind ofTDR process or whatever to increase the density through the clustering provisions. But if this was one parcel prior to '99 and that language says that, I don't know how you'd qualify for 110 units. And by the way, John, I didn't mention this to you when I talked to you yesterday, because as I told you when you and I talked, I would have to look at this language last night, and so that's when I read the language. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I didn't have a chance to even bring it up to staff either. But I certainly, from Kay or staffs perspective, I'd like an explanation of that sentence and how it applies to this parcel. And if this isn't considered a parcel that's practical for that application, then where's the limitation that does say a parcel of such size doesn't apply to that application? Because I don't see it. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I might respectfully suggest that that's a question of interpretation of the code. We're very comfortable with our own interpretation of the code. And the question before the commission this morning is simply whether the property is appropriate to be rezoned from the golf course zoning district to the fringe neutral lands agricultural zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the n unfortunately the staff report is replete with references to 110 single-family homes. And I think you had a TIS or something provided in other documents that referenced 110. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're in the record. Now I want to make sure that the record's correct. And if it takes an interpretation from staffto do that, I certainly want that interpretation before this -- before I can understand what this means, so n MR. PASSIDOMO: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a comment I have to make to you on that one. And when staff gets up here, we can get into that. Another thing, since you -- one of the items in your agreement concerning the future land use -- or future land use regulations that you agreed to abide by, I know you cannot do the Audubon Signature Program, but is there a commitment that the Audubon's Cooperative Sanctuary Program will be followed? MR. P ASSIDOMO: It has in fact been designated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there was an item, I guess this is a staff issue, on density blending. Because I now find out that you're not qualified for density blending, so I'll get that clarification from staff. Because that's inconsistent apparently with the report. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Don't need density blending. Attachment #3 Page 6 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club CHAIRMAN STRAlN: And the last thing I think during the NIM, one resident wanted clarification there be no commercial uses. I didn't fmd an answer in this write-up that we received. Is there any commercial uses being planned for this property? MR. PASSIDOMO: No uses are being planned for this property, Mr. Chairman. The -- no commercial uses are permitted in the zoning district to which we make application, so the simple answer is that none are contemplated and none will be permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to the first question about the 1991 agreement-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. PASSIDOMO: -- for part of that rezone? You may want to make -- what I've done is taken the liberty of showing you the existing conditions. And this is in your packet, so I hope you've had an opportunity to peruse this before. But what you can see is this is the two-mile stretch running east on Vanderbilt Beach Road extension as it exists today from Collier Boulevard. And what you can see from this is that there were a series of publicly dedicated right-of-ways and private easements that led right up to the Golf Club of the Everglades. And what happened upon submission of this, the prior application in 1989 to rezone the property from ago to golf course is there was not legal access all the way to Olde Florida. And those proceedings were suspended until Olde Florida was able to actually acquire that last leg that you see designated there in this kind of yellow color. You see the reference to easement and the recording information to that easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I read all the testimony from November of 1990, I believe, and then the fmal on February 21st of '91. And that's consistent with everything that reads there. But that also strengthens my argument that the intention of Vanderbilt Beach Road extension was to continue on. How it didn't go through your property but yet they made every other property prior to yours provide that extension distance is a little puzzling to me. And that's another issue we'll get into in a minute or two. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chair, you're going to want to pose that to staff, but let me suggest to you that in 1991 no one thought Vanderbilt Beach Road was going to go beyond this terminus. And Mr. Barton was here at that time, he can testifY to that effect. It certainly wasn't in the contemplation of the Board of County Commissioners in 1991 that they were designating an alignment for a road that wouldn't come to fruition until 15 years thereafter. It was not any plans, it wasn't within contemplation by anybody. The simple references in the agreement to which we refer are an absolute insurance that access was acquired to the property so it didn't -- it wouldn't alter the means of access through the residential lots in Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ironically there's some parcels to the east that have a section or portions of their property stopping shy of that canal, which to me they would have only done that so a road was coming through. How it was missed on your propert -- and it's not -- I'm not saying it's through any fault of yours. I just want to find out from transportation where their mindset was and how that, if anything, be corrected through any process here today. So thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just want to truly understand. Attachment #3 Page 7 of 32 _..,."_'",~.____.,.,"'.'~_ <",...~_",_._~~_~__..".' ._.__."'' _._..m."_...______,.,_,~,..~~_.__.......,"..___._." Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club I gather that this was -- this is forward planning now. In other words, you made a statement that you're not going to do anything with the property, you just want to rezone. MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So any change in taxation would only occur on the occasion ofthe first structure being introduced; in other words, a house. Would that be a correct statement? MR. PASSIDOMO: Well, you want to talk to the property appraiser about that, but I'm not sure that is a correct statement. The fact is the property appraiser assessed value of land and improvements, and one of the things they consider when they assess the value of the land is what you can do with the land. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right, I understand that part. In other words, the moment you would get the rezoning, the value of the land increases, effectively, because the taxation rate would be applied; wouldn't that be correct? MR. P ASSIDOMO: I'm not going to acknowledge it's going to increase or decrease, but somebody could come to that reasonable conclusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I too share the concern that I hear expressed, and I didn't express mine as strongly as I would like to have with regard to the changes that were made with regard that road and how others have been impacted by it. And I appreciate that the corporation sees a future, but I see a juxtaposition there that doesn't seem very fair to me. But that's just -- MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Murray, with all due respect, the only issue in front of the Planning Commission today -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. MR. P ASSIDOMO: -- is the proposed rezone. The Board of County Commissioners made their determination a couple of years ago as to the appropriate aligmnent of that road. Presumably there was a rational basis for their decision, and we respectfully request it's not appropriate to retry that now when the only issue before the Planning Commission is the rezoning request. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. In my heart, though, I had to make my comment. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time before we go to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, John. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report. MS. DESELEM: Good morning again. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. You do have the staff report, which is revised 3/17 of '09. And you have the -- on Page I, the requested action explains the geographic location. And on Page 2 is the description of the project that coincides with what the petitioner has explained as well. It shows you the surrounding land use at the bottom of that page. And on Page 3 it goes into the Growth Management Plan consistency review, and that's already been hit on to some extent already. It does identify that it's in the neutral lands. Talks about the maximum density and allowable uses within that, and specifically addresses the golf course or the Attachment #3 Page 8 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club driving range within that also. And it does talk about some of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary programs that were identified for this parcel. Talks about the native vegetation and preservation requirements. And there was a question, it talks about the density blending, and no density blending is proposed for the subject site. There was a question posed to staff from Mark Strain, and it has been explained by David Weeks that this parcel is not applicable to have these density bonus units. So that even though it says they're not -- blending is not proposed, they don't qualify for it anyway, so they would not be doing that. There is a transportation element discussion on Page 7 wherein transportation staff finds that the roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the maximum density that could be allowed by the compo planning. Explains the Vanderbilt Beach Road impacts and the County 951 impacts. Also explains that there are no environmental issues on this particular project as part of the rezoning. Any issues that would arise would be addressed later in the development order process. Staff does provide an analysis begirming on Page 7. And it touches on the transportation review, environmental review, utilities review, and goes into more depth as far as zoning and development review. You have rezone findings begirming on Page 9 and going through to the end of the report that support staff's recommendation that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval of the petition. And as you've already discussed, Michael Green from transportation is also here to address specific transportation concerns you may have. With that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to address them. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Kay, I have one, and it goes back to the question. I read the report where it said the maximum density one per five gross acres, but the italicized reference from the LDC that was put in our report was not the complete paragraph that's in the LDC when it talks about maximum gross density. Besides saying it's one to five, it goes on and provides the exception that I read earlier. Do you have any -- do you know why that exception wouldn't apply to this case? MS. DESELEM: This particular portion of the staff report was prepared by compo planning. But I'm not saying that I don't know, I'm just saying that that's where it came from. And I don't know why it wasn't put in. But my understanding is that this particular site would be reviewed as an overall site. I don't know that it would be limited to one unit for the overall size of the project. In fact, in the staff report it does say that they would be allowed that maximum density of 110 dwelling units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they derive the density from this simple calculation of the first few words in the -- under the neutral land designation, which simply said one dwelling unit per five gross acres, and it didn't tell us if they took into consideration the exception that's there involving the date. And I remember when that happened when -- I was in this county when the Governor put that moratorium in place. And because they were changing a lot of things, they were concerned about the Attachment #3 Page 9 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club size of some of the lots out there. And I think there was another property to the south called Hobschmits (phonetic) or some -- there was a big lawsuit to the south around a large piece of property over their calculation of density. And I don't remember the name of the owner. It started with an H, Hubsman or something like that. But if that's -- if this is applicable, then that 110 is in question. And since that's on the table here in this staff report, I certain! y would like to get an answer for it. And I know David was here. At the time I didn't have the question, because I thought it would be answered by you all, so I should have asked him when he was here this morning, but I failed to do that. Ifhe's listening and could either e-mail Ray or call in or something, I'd appreciate it, so __ MS. DESELEM: Well, I can state that this is information and it talks about a maximum density that could be sought, but in no case does this rezoning approval grant any density. That would all be addressed through the development order process. This is just general guidelines as to what the maximum could be. But in no case are we approving that density for this rezoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then maybe a solution without a further clarification would simply be that there's no density provided through this rezone process, it will have to come out of any application in the future. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Right. MS. DESELEM: Right, that would be -- this is just general information as to maximums that could be allowed. Density isn't by right anyway. You know, you're eligible to seek it, but there are no givens. You don't know what the configuration of the site might be, you don't know how they might design it. It might turn out that they can get, you know, some other number, 52, 47, 75. We don't know. We're just evaluating what the maximum that could be allowed as a general information. But the rezoning is not conditioned upon any density number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your staff report on Page 10, number five. In the future it's just a reference I'd like to mention to you. The second sentence of that answer says, the proposed zoning change is appropriate because its relationship to the FLUE is positive. Well, I think you mean is consistent in what you -- I don't know why you would be the judge of it being positive or not being positive under the material provided here today. MS. DESELEM: Yeah, the term positive is to mean that it's consistent rather than inconsistent. With the understanding that inconsistent would be negative, consistent would be positive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, consistent also -- I mean positive also means there's a plus side to approving this. I haven't seen that yet other than -- I haven't seen it, other than someone's going to make some money somewhere. I don't know, the tax -- county may increase taxes if homes are developed. But I just would think consistent is a better word in the future. Under number seven, the text of number seven reads differently than what your answer I think says. It says, in the first sentence, whether the change will create, and then the word or, or excessively increase traffic congestion. So if you take out the word "or excessively", because it's saying create or excessively increase, your answer is, the proposed change will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion. Well, we know it will create traffic con -- more -- increase traffic if they put anything on there besides the golf course. And I guess that's the premise under the 110 or any kind of additional housing that they could possibly change with their zoning application. Which if we stipulate they don't get any density, I guess that question goes away, so I've just answered my own question. MS. DESELEM: That was easy for me. Thank you. Attachment #3 Page 10 of 32 . Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-200B-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't know you were going to -- I didn't know my first answer was going to be what it was, so that created no need for the second answer. Okay, that's all -- unless there's more questions of staff, transportation needs to address some issues. Thank you. MR. GREEN: Michael Green, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, I mentioned to you yesterday my question for today concerning the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, and you were going to try to do some research. Why was -- if Vanderbilt Beach Road was such an issue, and I read the minutes of the meetings back in '90 and '91, they really -- the board at the time was insistent that this project make sure that road got to the west side their project. And I notice some properties to the east of this project have spacing above the canal on the north side narrow enough to make it appear as though it's a road alignment spacing or something of that nature. Why was this project not considered to have Vanderbilt Beach Road extension run through it? MR. GREEN: I couldn't find in the LRTP at the time that the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension was planned to go beyond. So much like we're doing today with the LDC 10.02.05(E), we require that the project extend public access to their site. To their site. Not like we did with the school or the church on Canon and Molder off of Immokalee, the same conditions. They're having to improve those roads down to their site, show us that they have easements and legal rights. But that doesn't mean that there's an intent to continue those through their site to the extent of the rest of the network. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying when this project came in for approval in 1991, there was no plan that showed the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension going further east than the western terminus of this project? MR. GREEN: I did not see one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go right ahead. I've still got more, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you go on, though, and leave that point. Then why in their agreement is there under a transportation commitment number one should the developer or other property owners wish to extend Vanderbilt Beach Road, they have to do it according to your specs. So obviously there was some consideration at the time of extending that road by these people. And at the time they would have to have been using their own property, unless they were going to go out and buy, like you all have, and I doubt that seriously. MR. GREEN: You see the condition under planning in the section above transportation? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. GREEN: It's strictly a requirement that they extend the road to their property. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that. MR. GREEN: The section under transportation is worded if they choose to. Like I said, today -- and I don't know that this was necessarily in our LDC in '91, but what we use today is 1O.02.05(E). It's in our LDC. We request that they show that they have legal access to their property and that they improve to county standards roads that they use to access it. COMMISSIONER CARON: There was intent here, in my opinion. Attachment #3 Page 11 of 32 -_.._..---~~ Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to my discussion with you yesterday, were you aware of this agreement? MR. GREEN: I hadn't read it personally. I pulled it after our discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a lot of study on the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, there's been a lot of coni1ict on that issue. And some of the people involved in this, I being at time to time one, I don't remember ever seeing this agreement before until it happened to come to us today as a result of the change that the petitioner is requesting. I think it's interesting that the language in the agreement -- and I wish that language had been introduced to the BCC at the time they made the decision to move this road south of the canal and the cost that's incurring to taxpayers of the hundreds of millions of dollars to do this route the way it is now when we had language that may have helped with a different argument back then. MR. GREEN: May have. But this language doesn't undo the eight or so well sites that public utilities has along the north side of the canal that would also -- are an immense cost to relocate, if you were to put the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension across there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have well sites all over the county. Under the transportation element on Page 7, the reference write-up, it says it's got a 6.8 percent significant impact on the roadway. And it says, this segment of Vanderbilt Beach Road is currently in the right-of-way acquisition process to accommodate a plan expansion outside the five-year capital improvement plan. The remaining capacity and level of service are not currently reflected into the adopted 2008 AUIR. What are you trying to say by that sentence? MR. GREEN: Vanderbilt Beach Road east of951 is not a concurrency segment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning? MR. GREEN: There is -- when this project came forward, we had -- we were approaching 60 percent design plans for the BCC adopted alignment. And that is what the right-of-way acquisition is working on this first segment of the new corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they have a 6.8 percent significant impact on the roadway but they're not in the concurrency management plan, it doesn't mean anything. Is that what it boils down to? MR. GREEN: Basically. Their 6.8 percent impact is on the surface volume of only a two-lane road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How bad of an impact will the addition -- would those trips -- well, those are existing trips. Any new trips, how would they have to justify them, should they come in with the more uses if they get this rezoned today? MR. GREEN: There's a commitment that I have in part of the application from Olde Florida that basically says that any additional traffic impact statements would be required to analyze any proposed change in uses, and they'd have to come back in with another TIS with their plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is that commitment found? What page of what paperwork? MR. GREEN: I'm not sure that it's in your staff report. It was in the documentation that has been provided during our review process. If I could put this up on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do. So it's the purple language in the second -- the second set of purple language you've got highlighted there? Attachment #3 Page 12 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club MR. GREEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a commitment, you're saying. Is it a code requirement? MR. GREEN: Yes. Any time they come in, they're required to provide -- any application is required to have a TIS accompanying it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if you got a -- if they put a house up in there, they'd have to have a new TIS for the house? MR. GREEN: Not for a single-family home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about if they put up I 10 single-family homes? MR. GREEN: If -- when they come in with the plat, once the plat and TIS that goes with that is approved, then they can build each of those single-family homes without further transportation applications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only way you catch them is if they come in with a plat. Are they required to come in with a plat? This property's owned by a corporation, the corporation wants to go in and build 110 homes for their 275 people to use on, say, an interim basis. Do they need a plat? MR. GREEN: I don't know if they need one through our process or not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's an interesting question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, I'm a little puzzled as to what's going on here with this whole application today. I'm concerned about what was missed apparently. And it wasn't the applicant that missed it. I think apparently there's some opportunity here that seems to have been missed by that agreement that was in place that seems to be newly discovered. But I would like any commitments that you need to make sure you get a TIS and you get the traffic addressed, that they're stipulated during this rezone process, instead of just relying on platting, if they chose not to plat. So I'll ask the applicant before this is over if they have any objection to platting any future uses that may go in there. And we could require platting as part of the rezone stipulation. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, let me just ask: While they have to provide a TIS, what will happen? You just said that they were not part of the concurrency system. So if they're not, it doesn't matter that they prove that they're going to highly impact the road if we can't do anything with that information. MR. GREEN: They're not going to have a negative impact. They have 68 total trips on their -- net new. I'm sorry, they have 68 net new trips that are utilizing under the existing two-lane version of Vanderbilt Beach Road. It's not a concurrency segment. The first concurrency segment is 951. They have a less than one percent impact on 951. So it's safe to assume that when Vanderbilt Beach Road is extended as a six-lane road, they will have also less than one percent impact on that road also. COMMISSIONER CARON: The intersection improvements that you're making at 951 are intended to solve any issues there. They're not just, this is the best fix we can have, correct? MR. GREEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: They are actual solutions. The reason I ask that is going back to when we were doing Growth Management Plan amendments at Orange Blossom and Airport. Whatever fixes were involved there, commitments were made to n but they were not solutions, they were just -- MR. GREEN: Unlike Airport n Attachment #3 Page 13 of 32 _ _H '0 .__"e___w____ ._--""--_.,-,,-,---,",~--,--,_._""-..,, Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the best we can do. MR. GREEN: That's correct. Unlike Airport and Orange Blossom, which the proposal is an interim fix and then an ultimate solution, Vanderbilt Beach Road and 951 is an ultimate solution that's designed for the traffic assumed to be utilized at that intersection in 2030. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Vanderbilt Beach Road went through this project instead of going -- crossing the canal, taking out homes and I guess assuming then go back up on the north side of the canal, I don't know where it goes after that, would going through this project have been a less expensive process for the public? MR. GREEN: 1 don't know the answer to that. I know that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean by buying out the golf course or destroying the golf course, I'm just saying had the process ran straight along that canal and not had this effort to go take out homes, it seems to me it would be a no-brainer, it would be less expensive. MR. GREEN: It eliminates some of the conflicts to homes in this section. There are still conflicts, there are still displacements in other areas of this corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The process we're asking to approve today for this project is going to open it up for more uses. And they're talking about one of the uses in here was 110 potential residential uses. No doubt in a club of this nature or a property of this nature that those uses would be very valuable. So the project stands to make a potential windfall of millions of dollars through a process of rezoning when they originally right now are just a golf club. They can't sell anything else, they can only sell the golf club. It seems to me that if transportation may have been in a position to consider some use of that southern tier property, because they're going to have to do a lot of work on that property anyway, and realigning a golf club when they're going to build homes, especially realign it so it's better amenitized (sic) for the homes they might build may not be a bad thing overall for the project. Did anybody from transportation attempt to explore that avenue with the applicant? MR. GREEN: We did. Actually it was explained to us that the existing golf course was going to be left untouched and the new homes were going to be isolated to the areas that were undeveloped that surround that golf course. So there weren't any new roads internal to the project for homes planned between the existing golf course and the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't look at the layout of the course, but every course is changeable. MR. GREEN: I'm not sure, it may be hole number two that runs almost parallel to the canal. There's a tee box in the fairway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see that, but I also see that north of the -- what looks like the tee boxes for hole number two are some vegetated areas, and it would only be able to swing hole number two up to the north in order to leave some space to the south in which a road could go through. Just a thought. I didn't know how far you guys explored it. But I'm trying to understand how this is a benefit. MR. GREEN: Through the -- there was I believe three public meetings during the corridor and alignment study process for Vanderbilt Beach Road. And there were conflict matrices that were put together that identified habitat impact, environmental impacts, public and private residential impacts, Attachment #3 Page 14 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club socioeconomic impacts. And the board I believe chose the alignment that had the less amount of the __ you know, the fewest amount of impacts to all of that. ' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe the board would have done so based on the information it had at the time. So I'm not sure that all this information was on the table, but thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just a quick question. And I'm sure this dye is cast, but at public hearing, did this landowner ever express the fact that they weren't going to build the second golf course? MR. GREEN: During the public meetings for the corridor study? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. GREEN: I didn't personally have any contact, and I don't know that any information was provided from this property owner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they never expressed the intent to come in at this date with an agricultural rezone? All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let me just run down -- you did a rundown of a list of considerations during that study, impacts to habitat, impacts to individual homeowners. Can you just reiterate that list? MR. GREEN: It was including but not limited to environmental impacts, habitat, public and private properties, businesses, residential impacts, impacts to utilities, both public and private, and . . SOCIOeconomIC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of transportation while they're up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I am not sure what time it is, but I think it might be 10:10. But why don't we take a -- Mr. Murray, before we take a break then? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just help me, what was the socioeconomic issue that you evaluated? MR. GREEN: It looks at the land uses and the potential for change in zoning and businesses and the businesses and residences that may be along that and what impact it may have, if it would increase or decrease property values and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And what did you conclude? MR. GREEN: I don't know. I didn't run that study. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take a break till -- well, that silly clock says it's 11: 11, so that would be 11 :25, but I think it's really 10: 11 and it would be 10:25, so let's come back here at 10:25 from a break. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you'll all come back to your seats. At some point the break ended. We don't know yet, because from 10:11, it is now 10:49. And we were supposed to have only taken 15 minutes. That's a result of our electronic technician, Kady, and our architect, Brad Schiffer, and our engineer, Mr. Schmitt, who's Corps of Army, all trying to fix a digital clock. I'm real worried about this. MR. SCHMITT: Electronically challenged. Attachment #3 Page 15 of 32 . >.._,_.-..._--_."'~-_. ----~. -.. ,._~ ',',."',n.___, W.. _~__.,___..___..__,.._____ Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, boy. Okay, let's move on. We had just finished up talking with transportation on the issues concerning this action. Are there any other issues of staff at this time before we ask for public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do we have any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one registered speaker. Peter Gaddy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GADDY: For the record, Peter Paul Gaddy. Morning, Mr. Chairman; morning, members of the Planning Commission. I'll be real brief. I agree with counsel that the issue before us here or before this Planning Commission is the rezoning of this property. However, the implications of the original ordinance is that the county commission in 1991 set the alignment for the Vanderbilt Beach extension. 1 think this is one of those situations where more questions have been raised than answers. If we don't ask some of these questions, we'll never know the answer. I want to point out that the original ordinance called for a road with arterial specifications. I would recommend that the county archives be searched and this Planning Commission obtain additional information prior to acting on the rezoning request. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Tim Moore. MR. MOORE: I was wondering if we could pull that map back up here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to get to the speaker, first, identify yourself for the record, and then we can go forward. MR. MOORE: My name is Tim Moore. I live at 1821 Richards Street. Which is -- if you pull up the map, I can show you where I am. Simplest way is for me to walk over. I'm-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, but n yeah, you're that road to the north, we understand. You have to be on speaker with everything, unfortunately, sir. Sorry. MR. MOORE: Okay. I'm A at the top of your paper-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOORE: -- at the end of Richards Road. Okay? I'm not objecting to the rezoning. What I've asked, and I sent a letter to Jim Coletta, which was sent to this lady. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay. MR. MOORE: Kay. And also to transportation, was that while you're doing this rezoning, why don't we ask for an easement to -- original maps show Richards Road going all the way to Vanderbilt. So if we had an easement all the way through, then some of that transportation that you're worried about would be alleviated. Number one. Number two, where I am all the way to Krape floods every year. Do we have something that we can walk with? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MOORE: I'm going to point n on an average n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to turn it on. There you go. One of those buttons. MR. MOORE: It's on. Can we try another one? Attachment #3 Page 16 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club MR. BELLOWS: You want to try a laser thing? Come to this one. MR. MOORE: Here, let's do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Ray. MR. MOORE: Okay, at the end of Krape Road, this land right here, during the summer months usually holds about two and a half, three foot of water, okay? Now, if we're going to put 110 houses in that area, then we're going to have to fill all that in, okay? Then we create another barrier here, and all this land floods even worse. My proposal is, and I'm not an engineer, and I don't claim to be, but if we had road ditches all the way to the canal at Vanderbilt, then we would eliminate all of this catch basin that you all -- I don't mean you guys. But what has happened is there was a cypress head that ran through here and a cypress head that ran through there that took the drainage out of this area. We don't have that now. Everglades has got a berm that goes across here and this is all full, okay? So what are you going to do with the two and a half, three foot of water here when you put all these houses in? You're going to have to raise that land up so that it will accommodate, and when you do that, then we're going to be in a fish bowl. So I don't have a problem with the rezoning, I have a problem with not making sure that we get an easement through there with road ditches all the way through to take it to that canal so that we eliminate all these folks being under water every summer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Are there any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. John -- oh, go ahead, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, you asked a question of Dave, and I have an e-mail and hopefully this may answer your question. Maximum density in neutral is one dwelling unit per five acres, both in the FLUE and in the LDC. So it's Future Land Use Element and Land Development Code. The exception is for legally nonconforming lots. The exception provision at the end of the RMFUD and the FLUE wouldn't apply since there is no prior zoning action or other development order approved that allows greater density. Maximum density using clustering is the same, just allows smaller lot sizes within total project. With or without clustering, this 554-acre site is eligible for II 0 dwelling units. Max lot size using clustering is one acre both in the FLUE and LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that does answer it. David probably knows better than anybody, so -- Okay, with that, John, did you have any comments? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Concluding remarks, Mr. Chainnan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. PASSIDOMO: We'd be happy to stipulate in the question of traffic impact statement at the time of a plat or a site development plan to ensure that the county does in fact have a site development plan in place at the time we know the future development of the property, so that you're assured you have a new traffic impact statement to reflect conditions as they may exist at that time. Appreciate the staffs comments for elaboration purposes, of course. The provision on density applies as an exception for non-conforming lots of record. It's not intended as an exception, it's intended to in no way detract from the underlining zoning on the property. Attachment #3 Page 17 of 32 ,<..._."_...."...,_._.._..__.~.....,'"-_."-,._.. ~.~~.".__.,->-- ."...."...-- _ ,"',,_ .__ ,.._,_.....~","__""~.___"."._.'.. ,~_....__.~._......,,_.._._.__o>,,__._.._,.._ .. --~.._-.- . ..,-_.."...__...-,---, Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club The thought that the best thing to address questions of -- from a historical perspective and especially the questions that Mr. Moore most recently raised about Richards Street drainage, what may have happened in 1991 and what may have happened before the Board of County Commissioners and the testimony in evidence and professional counsel that was in front of them when they made their determination as the alignment of the road, we'd ask Bill Barton to testify before you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barton was here in 1991 in a professional capacity, he was here as a member of the Olde Florida Golf Club, and he has been throughout. He has personal knowledge and he has professional expertise. And with your indulgence, I'd like to ask him to testify, because I think there are a lot of good questions that were raised, and Mr. Barton can respond to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank. you, Mr. Chairman. Bill? MR. BARTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The -- let me start with a couple of things. I made some notes here as discussion was occurnng. On one of the first ones, the Chairman asked whether or not the easement that was required to be granted to South Florida Water Management District was indeed granted. And the answer to that is yes, it was. In addition to that, although it has nothing -- no bearing on this, Olde Florida also granted to Collier County I think four different easements for well sites along that same canal corridor. It was either three or four, I'm not sure, I don't recall exactly. The discussion that we've had some elaboration on was the agreement between Olde Florida and Collier County regarding the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road. And I -- although it's some nearly 20 years ago, I do have some fairly good recollection of that. And that entire agreement was -- became necessary because at the time Olde Florida began its process of entitlement for the golf course areas, it had not yet acquired the legal right to extend Vanderbilt Beach down to its western property line. And that of course was a concern of the county, because obviously you don't want to grant entitlements to a piece of property that cannot be accessed legally. So that agreement came out of that. Obviously at that point in time there was no road constructed. And what we're talking about right now is the property predominantly that runs along the south side of Golf Club of the Everglades, which is immediately west of Olde Florida. We consequently did gain a legal access there through an easement, and the road had to be built to gain access to our property. And Collier County in that agreement required that that road be built to county standards, which we agreed to do. So that agreement had absolutely nothing to do with the extension of Vanderbilt Beach eastward of Olde Florida's west property line. And I can tell you that I was part of those conversations back in those days, and here we sit almost 20 years later saying goodness gracious, why didn't those people anticipate that Vanderbilt Beach Road will be extended to the east? That question I can't answer, but I can tell you we didn't. That issue was never discussed. Everybody that was involved in the process at that point in time presumed that the eastern terminus of Vanderbilt Beach Road was going to be at Olde Florida. None of us contemplated that it would be at some point in time extended eastward from them. Attachment #3 Page 18 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club As r say, looking back now, one would say gosh, that was not very forward thinking. But how many of us at that point in time expected Golden Gate Estates to begin to build out like it did? How many of us at that time expected advents like Ave Maria? So there were a whole lot of things that occurred afterwards that changed our perspective. But I reiterate, in 1991 there was absolutely no discussion about Vanderbilt Beach Road being extended eastward of our west property line. In today's world, Collier County had some very difficult processes to go through, and now that we know that road must indeed be extended eastward, what alignment to take. And r assure you, and I know you know this, that Collier County looked at that very, very carefully. Olde Florida actually was not the major part of the problem. And the reason I say that is that although two holes, and it's actually not hole number two, it's actually holes number eight and nine that would be impacted by that roadway, if it were to go along the north side of the canal. But Olde Florida, fortunately as we're discussing today, had other properties. So in the long term, if that decision had been made, Olde Florida could have cured that problem. It would have been expensive, but they could have cured the problem. The real problem was really Golf Club of the Everglades next door. That property doesn't have any excess property. And Vanderbilt Beach Road, coming through the southern portion of Golf Club of the Everglades, would have taken all of their hole number nine, a significant part of the required parking, and the entire green for hole number eight. And there was no cure. Because Golf Club of the Everglades has virtually used all of its land. So what the COlUlty was looking at is the potential of having to buy the entire golf course, since there was not a cure to repairing the damage that would be caused. And in today's world, there simply is no market for a 16-hole golf course. So that's the real expense there was not Olde Florida, it was Golf Club of the Everglades. And r will tell you that the county staff determined that keeping the roadway on the north side of the canal, their estimate was that the cost to the county taxpayers would have been $45 million greater than putting it on the south side. We actually contended that number was probably too low. It probably would have been closer to a $60 million number. And that's basically what drove the issue. r would also add to that that if the roadway had been kept on the north side of the canal, in all likelihood they would have also had to take some homes that are existing in the Vanderbilt Country Club. There's a tier of lots and homes immediately adjacent to what is currently Vanderbilt Beach Road that likely would have been in jeopardy. So yes, they would have reduced the number of homes required to be taken on the south side, but then they probably would have had to increase the number of homes taken on the north side. With regard to Mr. Moore's discussion of Richards Road, that road is aligned immediately north of Olde Florida's west property line. And although this hasn't been discussed today, the rezone that we're asking for continues to keep us as a neutral property in the district. And that will require any development to preserve 60 percent of the natural vegetation that exists within the property. We certainly would have no reason not to go on record stating that any easement requirement along our west property line, we would be sure to be included in that property to be preserved, so that that easement would always be available if and when at some point in the future Richards Road is something that the county contemplates building. Attachment #3 Page 19 of 32 _ _ _. ~.,.."_,. ,_~.'_' ....,__,.~.".^'>',,, _....... ^,"~.p"._._.M _.,..__.,_~.,_~"_<> ~_,__A_~'__"_'~~_>_'_'~"~_'_"_'~ '_"'_'___~' ','_", .'.,' Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club I will tell YOI4 though, that with regard to using that as -- to facilitate drainage for those properties to the north -- and I'll preface this remark by telling you that I am a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida. And one of my expertises is stormwater management. And I will tell you, that won't work. The flood waters in the canal reach an elevation that currently Olde Florida is directly tied to the Cypress Canal. We have a direct out fall. When we designed it, we anticipated that in the event of a 25-year frequency storm event that Olde Florida would indeed have flooding occur on their golf course. As it's turned out, we have had three of those 25-year plus events in the last 15 years. And each time it flooded, as we knew it would, as did the property to the north of us, those floods have cost Olde Florida something in excess of $400,000, the collective amount. The one that occurred two years ago, we actually had to shut the golf course down for 30 days because the damage was so severe that -- and we had to resod so much of the property that the golf course was not playable. And fact of the matter is, one should be very, very cautious before making connections to Cypress Canal, for properties to the north of it, because there are rainfall events that could in fact flood properties to the north that would have not otherwise be flooded if the ditches were not in place. One might say, how can that occur? The way that occurs is when the primary rainstorm fall, heaviest rainfall is to the east, which is in the collection basin of the Cypress Canal. When that then comes down the canal and begins to cause flood waters in the canal, those elevations will climb to a point in the canal where they would begin to back up into properties surrounding that canal. Not unlike precisely what we're seeing in North Dakota right now. The Red River that's been threatening Fargo is not because of rainfall that fell on Fargo, it's because of the rainfall that fell upstream from Fargo and is now causing flood events to occur in Fargo. So one needs to be very cautious in starting to make connections, like roadside swales, to properties to the north, because they could cause more problems than they might solve. So those are just some historical events that r wanted to share with you. And if there are any questions, I'd be more than happy to try to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: r do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: If flooding is such an issue out there right now, Mr. Barton, and you've had at least three events here that all surpassed the 25-year storm event, does it make sense then to be rezoning this property so you can put 110 homes with septic systems out there? MR. BARTON: Well, let me answer that question in two parts: First, the issue of how 110 dwelling units might fit on the property or how they would be designed is a question for another day. And most certainly that process would have to be reviewed under whatever criteria and guidelines we have. What we're asking for here today in the rezone is simply taking a piece of property that currently has virtually zero value, because golf course property in today's world, not only can you not sell it, I'm not sure you could give it away, if the only use for it was golf course. We're trying to simply take an asset that has no value and cause it to be an asset that does have some value. With regard to whether or not septic tanks would be an appropriate use in that location, I don't know the answer to that. However, my -- pardon me, Florida allergies -- my anticipation is that by the Attachment #3 Page 20 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club time the single-family housing market turns around in Collier County to the point that this property would become attractive, the availability of central sanitary sewer is going to be there. It's already to the corner of 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. In fact, the new church that was just built there is on central sewer. So we're not that far away. And my expectation is that at that point in time Collier County would require any developer to make that connection, and highly doubtful in my mind that any septic tanks would ever be used on this property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the interchange map, there's a road called Douglas Road. Is that Richards Road? Do they line up together? MR. BARTON: No, sir, I don't think so. I think Richards -- now, Richards does not come down to this property. In fact, there's another out-parcel, it's either 20 acres or 40 acres, north of OJde Florida that currently does not have Richards Road on it. In other words, it comes down and terminates at some parcel north of our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it help, I think the Richards Road aligns -- see the red line on the west side of the Olde Florida Golf Club on this map? That's where Richards Road will align with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And where is -- then looking at this map showing the canal on Vanderbilt Road coming down and then coming back up, they show a road called Douglas Road. So the reason I bring it up, wouldn't that be a logical place for that intersection, such that if they ever did connect that would be a good north-south corridor between Vanderbilt and Immokalee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean you would take Richards Road -- how would you get there from the -- the terminus of Richards from the south over to Douglas in the north, how would you get there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the same way we wish -- they were thinking about, you know, back when this originally -- you know, we had the east-west access that we didn't take. This would just be at this point in time trying to establish the north-south. But where is Douglas Road is really the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's right -- look on your left. On the left side of the screen down towards the bottom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See Richards up on top? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this map we're showing is that this thing is going to transfer -- okay, this is going to transfer well before this property then. MR. BARTON: Yeah, Douglas Road is actually on the west property line of Golf Club of the Everglades. So it's a half mile west of Olde Florida's property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if Douglas Road ever did -- or Richards Road ever did come down, it would come down onto your access drive? MR. BARTON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And would they have the ability to access that? MR. BARTON: Yes, they would. The easement there is a public easement. However, there would not be the ability at that intersection to access Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They would have to come down to this Douglas Road then. Attachment #3 Page 21 of 32 . '.' .,,',,- .~<."...'''.^' ,. ,,_, ,.._......_...M_._.,....,...._._. ,_._'_'_'_'_ Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club MR. BARTON: That's correct. Then they'd have to turn westward and go to Douglas Road in order to access Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, appreciate your time. MR. BARTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, John, I think we have a few issues that were discussed I'd like to run by with you before we go into deliberations. You have no problem with the stipulation concerning the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program, that you'll retain that at all times for the golf course subject -- and that the property would be subject to the rules of the neutral lands for golf courses. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no density being provided as a result of this process today, whatever the outcome is. And you agree with that? MR. PASSIDOMO: There's no density being provided? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We're not giving you density today. We're not providing density. This is strictly you're requesting a rezone to neutral. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Whatever we're entitled to in the proposed zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm going next. This whole thing has been somewhat of a mystery. You've got a golf course zoned piece of property, it can function as a golf course. You've got a clubhouse; you've got all the amenities that the golf course has. You want to go to neutral lands and still retain the golf course use, obviously. But at some time in the future you're going to do something else. The difference between '91 and now are some of the benefits that you can derive under neutral lands that maybe you couldn't have done under the agricultural zoning as it was in 1991. So the golf course has been kind of like a holding pattern until this change has been suggested here today. It leaves a lot of unknowns in regards to what you're going to do with the property and how the density of that property and how the impacts on that property will affect others. Where you put your houses, how many, the road coming in, how you'll connect to Vanderbilt, all the issues that the county generally is worried about. You have by rights in the neutral area an extensive amount of new uses, including single-family residential, mobile home overlays, dormitories, duplexes, group housing, family care facilities, group care facilities, staff housing, sporting and recreational camps, golf courses and driving ranges. It goes on and on for quite a few uses. And that's -- they're all by right. So I don't -- by right you wouldn't necessarily have to come before a public process. And when Mr. Barton spoke he, you know, said you guys would go by whatever process is in place for -- as you proceeded. Well, there is no process in place except going through staff. Would you have any objection that any changes to your property in regards to uses come back before this Planning Commission for review? MR. P ASSIDOMO: After the zoning is in place, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you receive the zoning today to go from golf course to neutral, any further increases in changes or density on that property, whether it be through any type of use come back through the public process through the Planning Commission. Attachment #3 Page 22 of 32 . Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club MR. PASSIDOMO: Any changes, Mr. Chairman, that increased the density or changed the use, other than what is prescribed in the Land Development Code right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, other than what is being done today on that property. So if you take advantage of the new uses and the neutral land that you seemingly want to, and since you're not providing us with that scenario today, I'm suggesting that you come back through this process and provide that now -- provide that then at the time you do it. If you want to come back in and put homes and parcels and break it up and subdivide it into parcels, you come back in for the public process in front of this board. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, we do have to come back obviously administratively to address site development plans or platting. But you're suggesting that rather than have that handled administratively, it be handled by the Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the staff would still have to review it, but the Planning Commission would have to see it, and you'd have to go through a public process for approval. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, would it have anything to do with the -- if the question, if the scope of that review relates to platting or site development plan issues, that's one question. If the scope of that review deals with uses, heights, densities and intensities, I think that's another question. Because those are prescribed by the Land Development Code, and they seem to be outside the proper scope of review for the Planning Commission or for the Board of County Commissioners after the zoning is in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You just said the magic words, after the zoning's in place. Is in place. So in order to get it in place -- Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. For clarification, if any plat comes in, a final plat, as you well know, has to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. That's on an agenda item and it's approved by the Board of County Commissioners, so it is a public process. Normally it's on a consent agenda. However, in this case if it involves a consent issue or involves an issue that is of interest to the public, certainly we can be directed or the board can pull that item and put it on the regular agenda. Or they can certainly remand that back to the Planning Commission. So I just want to clarity the process so the public understands: It is a public process and it is approved before the Board of COlmty Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there are -- they are done routinely every week; is that right? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many have ever been pulled, changed, modified, sent back to this Planning Commission? MR. SCHMITT: None sent back to the Planning Commission. Probably in my time frame here, which is almost seven years, I believe twice we pulled plats onto the regular agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem I have here is I don't think anybody would go into the process that this applicant's here for today without having some idea what they might want to do in the future. We're not being provided with any of that information. We're basically saying we're going to do whatever our rights are allowed for us to do. The rights that come under the standard zoning, if you were to allow -- and zoning is by the way not -- you can't get a rezone, I don't believe, by right. You get a rezone by process. And if there's reasons why this board feels the process isn't appropriate, it may not succeed. But it would help I think a lot of us to get in if we knew that we had some additional review opportunity down the road when you finally wanted to tell us what you intend to do with this property. Attachment #3 Page 23 of 32 _,_.~ .' 'n,' '"._.w._____._...~..._.,_______._ , .~__ _._,_.._____...__._,~_._.'"_'...__._...~._ .....M Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club And that's my concern with that issue, and that's why I requested of you, do you have any objection if we were to stipulate that any changes to the uses on this property -- and whether those changes are density, intensity, height or whatever, but use changes on this property beyond the golf course uses come back to this panel for review. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I want to be cooperative. I don't want to be elusive, I don't want to be responsive. If the question is rather than through an administrative process we go back to the Planning Commission for site development plan or platting review, that's one question. If that's the question, I'd be happy to consult with my client concerning that issue. Is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you did -- any change you make on this property -- and staffs going to have to help me here. Is there any way they can make a change without coming in for a plat or a site -- or a site development plan? MR. BELLOWS: If you mean can they build a single-family home in there without-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can they build 110 single-family homes in there? MR. BELLOWS: You have to go through the platting process to do more than -- MR. SCHMITT: You would have to plat to develop a tract, and then you'd have to come in and probably subdivide that, if he's going to build individual homes, single-family homes on one home per five acres or demonstrate that he's in compliance with the code. If he's going to build some kind of multi-family, of course the tract would then come in with a subsequent site development plan, again, demonstrating that he meets the requirements as defined in the rural fringe mixed use development overlay, RMFU, and he would be subject to those review criteria that exist in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Joe, if they had come in today with a request to go from golf course to PUD with a site plan laying out the intensities, densities, setbacks, heights, everything else that would affect the surrounding properties, it would have been more complete for us to review. MR. SCHMITT: And I understand that. Certainly understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically they want to go into an opportunity to make a lot of changes that may not have been anticipated at the time this was even given its neutral land designation, well enough its conditional -- its whatever, golf course designation back in '91. That all happened years ago. So there's some kind of vesting issue or grandfathering issue already in place. I'm suggesting -- well, first of all, how did this become neutral? Do we even know that? Would it have become a neutral land had they not had the golf course zoning already in place for this property? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you want to talk to him? MR. SCHMITT: Well, the neutral lands are designated as part of the study that -- and all the background and the data and analysis as was performed as part of the rural lands process, in this case the rural fringe mixed use district. And that was determined based on existing conditions on the land at that time when it went through the public hearings. Any more than that, you probably have to bring that catcher in, and David and some others to give you some history as to why or how they designated this neutral. But the -- and understanding also, before they go through the platting process, they're going to have to go through the permitting process, meaning through District permitting, South Florida Water Management District, demonstrate water -- all the other districts permitting processes associated with that. Attachment #3 Page 24 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I'm trying to make sure that what happens here in the future we have a better handle on than we have had in the past. And that's why I've asked the applicant if they would accept a public process through the Planning Commission for approval or denial of any uses or changes regarding this property beyond those involving the golf course or the amenities to the golf course. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I think it may confuse the purpose of these proceedings. These proceedings are to establish zoning on the land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: You know, when you go through a criteria, Mr. Chairman, there are certain things you have to look at, including does the proposed change adversely influence living conditions. You have no idea what -- the information in front of you to make a decision. You've got another one, will the proposed change create a drainage problem. And we've had some testimony on that, and you have no idea. And there are a number of other criteria here that it's very difficult, given the lack of information you have as to what they intend to do with this. But you can make an educated recommendation to the Board ofC01mty Commissioners. This is a very unusual request. I don't think I've ever seen a zoning request where they're going from existing golf course use to down-zone, or up-zone, depending on how you look at it, to an agricultural zoning with 110 acres. I don't have an issue if you just make this a condition. And if they don't like it, they can take it with the Board of County Commissioners when -- that (sic) the board wants to keep that as a condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't know whether I should wait until the discussion, but I might just as well say it now. When I was reviewing this, I thought the whole thing was brilliant. What a move. And being on the RLSA committee for a year and a half and then again reviewing it here, if this should become neutral land, they do have the right to just automatically build the homes as they want to, 110. And that's the way I read through this whole thing. That's the way it looked and that's the way it smelled. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think Mr. Wolfley's really hit the nail right on the head. This is really a process. It's intended to provide some flexibility so we can respond to market conditions, but it's simply intended to align the zoning of the land with the permitted uses as of right under the future land use designation for rural fringe neutral lands. That's all it does. There's no triggering event here that creates anything that the change in the designation to this land as rural fringe neutral lands didn't anticipate. We know what we're going to do. We'll come back to staff, we'll come back if you'd like to the Planning Commission and we'll come back to the Board of County Commissioners. But at that point in time the only thing we're going to come back with is what we don't have now and that is a site plan or a plat. But at that point in time -- and we'll have to go through permitting. And you don't customarily look at that. But you can look at that. And I think that the process will be well served by the Planning Commission looking at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with the County Attorney's recommendation. His counsel is that we can make it a condition, and so I think that's a good move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Attachment #3 Page 25 of 32 ,-,.",-',' ,~,,,''''~,,,"-''';-''-''~''' -.. ... ,-,_., '~"""'~,",,~,,--"--""-~.._-----'-""---"~"-'.~'--'-"""-" -.--.. - Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club And the next question I have for you, John, is the easement along the west property line. Mr. Barton didn't think that would be a problem, that you would provide through that west property line an easement. I mean, up to the county to make sure they can get the easement materialized, assumingly. But that for the -- along the west property line for the Richards Street extension down to Vanderbiit Beach -- down to your public access to Vanderbiit Beach Road. MR. P ASSIDOMO: I think Mr. Barton's going to want to respond to that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because that's not what he said. MR. P ASSIDOMO: It's not designated in the future land use transportation plan. If the county wants to buy it, they can buy it. There's a 60 percent native vegetation requirement. We don't want to do anything to impugn that. But with those introductory remarks, let me just let Mr. Barton respond to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe I misheard him then. I thought that's -- I thought you said something to that effect. MR. BARTON: Let me touch on two points. Interestingly, the reason we are here today is that when we initially zoned this property to golf course, the mixed use development district did not exist. That came after us. Next door, in Golf Club of the Everglades, which developed shortly after we did, but after the District was in place. By seeing the District, they did not rezone their property to golf course; they left it agricultural and simply got a conditional use to put a golf course on it. Had we done this golf course in 1995 instead of 1991, we wouldn't be here today, because we would not have rezoned the property to golf course. We would have left it agriculture, asked for a provisional use, conditional use for golf course, just as Golf Course (sic) of the Everglades did. So really all we're trying to do is get ourselves in about the same position as Golf Club of the Everglades is today. Because they didn't have to have the advantage of knowing the District was going to be formed after they went through the rezoning process. That's one thing I wanted to point out to you. The other is what I said on the road easement for Richards Road is that we would simply agree not to build anything within that corridor, that that would become part of the 60 percent natural vegetation area. So that in the future, if that road -- it makes little sense to me to impose an easement in a location that the county has no plan to build a road, it's not in one single part of the county's plans right now. By the same token, I understand the advantage of leaving the corridor there. We're willing to do that. We're willing not -- to stipulate that that would be part of the -- the other concern I have is that if we grant the easement, all of a sudden there's roughly four acres of land taken out of our property. Now the 60 percent preservation requirement even takes more of the land than it would otherwise. So what I'd like to do is assure you that we won't put anything in that corridor, and then if at some point in the future an easement is needed there, it can be dealt with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the clarification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think we should do that. I mean, they've discussed how when they were building their property they had to negotiate with the people to the west and then never imagined that the owner to the east would ever want to do that with them. So I don't think that showed the forethought necessary. Attachment #3 Page 26 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club So I think if we do that, let's do that in such a way that it is the width of a good collector road, or whatever maximum road we think, plus some sizeable setbacks so that we don't find them developing in that area again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And I think something that's changed between 1991 and if you had done this as a conditional use to agriculture in 1995, in '95 if you had done it we may have been further along in some of our master planning of roads in the county, and the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road would have been left alone on this property. The fact you're coming in today is like a second bite at the apple. Although the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension may be too far down the road to bring into this rezoning issue here today, it's still -- I don't put a lot of argument in the fact that it would have been the same if you had done it in '95. I think in '95 we were getting out of some problems we had politically. We might have been a little more sophisticated to a point where we realized that road extension was needed and we might have requested that road alignment or that area be left alone on the south side of this property and save that alignment to go straight across. So I'm not -- I don't still believe we need to make a second mistake in 2009 by letting this go to a free-for-all from golf course to just open neutral and anything goes. I can't -- that I can't go to. So my intention is to make sure that this is -- any uses or changes to this property, other than those involving strictly the golf course and its facilities, would have to come back to the public process to be approved. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Can I ask for clarification? And from a stand -- we have no process to do that. And I just want to discuss to make sure we understand how to proceed with that, if in fact the board concurs with your recommendation. We have no fees for that, and we would have to -- we could identifY what that would cost. It would be similar to undergo this process. Do you want to have the required public notice in regards to advertisement, neighborhood information meeting, those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, I would treat it just -- we can't call it a PUD, but I would treat it like a PUD, because that's honestly what this property should be coming in here for today is a PUD. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to make sure we understand so that we proceed and we notice, advertise and do all the other required processes prior to bringing it here so we have clear understanding what your intent is. So I understand what you're saying, it would be treated almost like a rezone again but coming in to review the plat. And I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it would be in the form of a PUD process I believe is what's being suggested. And I'm not sure that's what everybody's suggesting, but that's what __ MR. SCHMITT: Okay, I just want to make sure so we understand and we can note that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are you referring to every home at a time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, because they could build these over 10, 15 years by right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They'd still have to put in infrastructure. Attachment #3 Page 27 of 32 - ,.--."....---.......----., -",,-- .. _".,.~._._.q_'._.M'~__H'._ .. -.----, ~~,,-_._-_..-_._-"-_...__.._._. - , Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what? There's a lot to be said for coming in with a master plan well planned out with densities, heights, restrictions and setbacks. If they want to come in 110 times for a PUD process, then let them come in. I think the county would benefit from it because it gets more staff hired because we have plenty of funds then. But anyway, that's kind of what my thought is. Anybody else have any comments during this discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay-- MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do you have anything, John, you want to add? MR. PASSIDOMO: If! can just close. If! can propose that on three stipulations, and for your considerations, Mr. Chairman. The first is, as we indicated earlier, we will come in with a new traffic impact statement at the time of the SDP or plat, whatever it may happen to be. Following up on Mr. Barton's comments, we'll provide a setback along that western property so that you know that there's sufficient land there to accommodate a public right-of-way if the county wants to have a public right-of-way in that area. And then finally, our proposal for your consideration, Commissioners, is that in order to give some direction to the Planning Commission at a future time, to your staff and ultimately to the Board of County Commissioners, when we come back in for a site development plan or a site plan, or before we build the first house on the property, we have to come back before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to have that site plan and that -- and/or that plat approved __ recommended for approval and approved ultimately by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that gets us the coverage that we're looking for. You said ifthe plat or the SDP. Ray, is there anything they can do without a plat or an SDP on this property? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Other than a single-family home one at a time. They don't have to come in for a plat. But once you do three or more units, you have to plat. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I'll stipulate that we won't come in for one home without coming through the platting or SDP process. Before we build the first home on the property, we'll come in with an SDP or a plat, and the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Corrunission will have the ability to see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt, in reference to the process that would be utilized to make this come through, we would implement the PUD process in regards to advertising fees for whatever else was in place for the review process to come before the boards, and then through the board analysis we could adjust setbacks, heights or anything else that would seem inappropriate. Is that clear? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And from here it would go to the board, but it would go to the board. Most likely it will also include the final approval process, similar to any plat approval, which certainly you're familiar with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Attachment #3 Page 28 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club MR. SCHMITT: It would be part of that final approval plat process with a report from the Planning Commission noting what we'd done. So it would be a combination between -- almost like a rezoning and a fmal plat approval when it goes to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and if it went to the board under this new process and it had a dissenting vote from the Planning Commission, it would not be on summary agenda then; would it not? MR. SCHMITT: Certainly not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because all your plats are generally on summary agenda. MR. SCHMITT: Right. They would not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would be an exception in this case. MR. SCHMITT: Right. We'd put it on the regular agenda, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think it fairly checks out, subject to staffs figuring it out when they come back with a consent agenda. Does anybody else have any comments, questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron first, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: Was it also your testimony, Mr. Passidomo, that the golf course would not move? MR. PASSIDOMO: There's certainly no contemplation that it will ever move. Did I make a comment as a stipulation that the golf course will never move? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. PASSIDOMO: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. PASSIDOMO: And frankly, I don't even know really what that could mean or why the public would have an interest in that. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it was just a statement that had been made and so I wanted to make sure it shouldn't be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: John, just in clarification, I'm sure you meant this, but when you said we'll provide an easement of sufficient space to make a road there, Richard Road, Richard Street, or whatever it is, right, that's what you said? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir. Thank you for asking for clarification, Mr. Murray. What I suggested is that we'll have a setback in that area. The assurance is given that there won't be any structures there. So if the county wants to come in at some later time and actually acquire that property and create a road there, there won't be an impediment to their ability to do so in the form of a setback. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I appreciate that. What I thought I heard, though, Mr. Barton saying he was concerned that he would, by taking what is legitimately I think a standard for a road, you're going to reduce it 60 percent, et cetera, et cetera. But that's okay, you're good with that? MR. P ASSIDOMO: If it's a setback then we're not reducing the native vegetation requirement. I think that's the sensitivity we have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Attachment #3 Page 29 of 32 , .-- -~. .-..... ,-,_,_,_'---'--"'---'~"--" '- ,,_...- "'-"'"--'''---' -~."'~"._-~'-_.'-"-- _.,- ,---- . - Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-200B-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else want to comment at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, are you finished? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, I am. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And u COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't close it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm not doing it yet. That's why I was asking. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to ask transportation one last question here. MR. GREEN: Michael Green, Transportation Plannillg. COMMISSIONER CARON: Looking in your crystal ball, do you see, can you anticipate the need for this north-south Richards Street to become a corridor, an actual road? MR. GREEN: You're digging a trap for me. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I am. MR. GREEN: We always try and get interconnections and create a grid. Yes, that would be a benefit. I don't have any tools available to me today in place to provide me the nexus to ask for this under this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you had a stipulation that provided you the ability for that easement and you wanted to use it in the future, that would be more advantageous than not. MR. GREEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was going to say, the best thing we can do is keep them from building a golf hole where we need it, as the past has given us. MR. GREEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or a house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Anything before I close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. But let's have discussion first. There's a lot of things that this project entails, and one of them is the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road. As much as I hate what we've done with that extension, I don't believe we can find that as a reason to deny this project. However, I think it's good that we had the discussion today and some more information got on the table concerning that. So that set aside, I also, as this whole board has expressed, this has not been a real clear understanding of what they're trying to do here. The information we got is limited and doesn't provide a lot of clarity. So based on that, I suggest that we consider the following stipulations: one is that the golf course always will retain the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. And once it's rezoned into the neutral land categories, it will come under the rules within the neutral lands for the golf course operatIOns. Number two: There will be no density awarded as a result of today's process. Meaning they may go into the neutral land category, but they don't have any other uses allocated them through Attachment #3 Page 30 of 32 Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club today's process, nor are they entitled to them until they come back through the third stipulation, which is: That any uses or changes come back to the Planning Commission and the BCC under this process similar to that of the PUD process for review and approval for all categories that we would look at as though it were a PUD. And number four: That the applicant will not build within the Richards Road corridor or allow -- and allow the county to acquire an easement if needed therefore in the future. And those are the four stipulations I think that we talked out here today. Does anybody have anything that they would like to consider adding to it, elaborate on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is staff clear on the stipulations? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. I need to know how big of an area you don't want them to build in. The talk was a setback, what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says the Richards Road corridor. Whatever corridor width transportation can provide you with between now and the time we get consent. Unless they know now. MS. DESELEM: I heard John Podczerwinsky say the term 60 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds logical, because that's I think the minimum standard for the county anyway. So let's leave 60 feet as a minimum corridor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Plus I would like a setback for a building. So why don't we just say 100 feet and make it easy, that they can't build within 100 feet of that property line. That would give them the full right-of-way. It may be set up where they can only have half the right-of-way. And at the time of the review of the public hearing we'd be able to make a smarter decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have no problem with that. MS. DESELEM: So you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can't build within 100 feet of the western property line. And the intent of that stipulation is for the future provision to Collier County to acquire that as an easement. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other clarifications you need, Kay? MS. DESELEM: I think I've got it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make the motion that the Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-2008-AR-1395 I , known as Olde Florida Golf Club, Incorporated, with a recommendation of approval, based on the stipulations as offered by the Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Any further discussion? Attachment #3 Page 31 of 32 ,_ ',__'"v.."~~_~"~"_'"",,,__ ".'~'__.'".m..~. e. "_.~ .___.._~"~'.<_.~~..,_'~__,,,--_,~_. ..,,__ """-""-~_..-_._-"'~-"......._-, Excerpts from April 2, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Hearing Minutes For Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I certainly would not have even considered voting for this unless the commitment was made that it come back to us -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- a lot closely -- a lot more closely aligned with a PUD process. This is a huge piece of property out there and shouldn't be done to standard zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would agree with you, I would not have voted for it without that stipulation being in place. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I too. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Neither would I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor of the vote, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. It's now II :30. Ladies and gentlemen, we have two to go through. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: II :20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever time it is. It's so hard with that clock. I'd just as soon, if it's okay with you, we'll keep pushing. We might be able to finish these two up in short order and not have to take a break for lunch. Is that -- we'll just have to see how it goes for the next half hour or so. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay, move to approve. Attachment #3 Page 32 of 32 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: '1/1..- ;-('% -/GL . L '. . c..-J ( .' '/ ;/ / &C^ f' L ill jJ qE PLEASE RRINT CLEARLY PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOAR~M PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD. NAME:~1-;;:.dr ADDRESS: 7':;;" a.\- .c.r- r'V, Ie) REPRESENTING: PETITIONER: OTHER: , - ~ 1-(' COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES {INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W, HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL. You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR. r Floor,' ,~ ,Center. 3301 i.Il8t T~_ ," , '~~Ic:tet: ' . :'..'.'..... ,',':,4_:0:;' "'- . ~ P=.AR-11~;,~ Proper- '." 'u..C.: ~ by ~~. A1CP. 1f,0001dSO!'l ~ng, 1I10i'1,~ a rezone , '~the atate. 00 Zon...... ~'~ the Cammer- ,"~P1~Unlto.,..O~~ZOfIlng District ' for a l!5.000 squal$-1QOt ~nttaU and''bfllil:e (IeveIOproenI to be ~ ,~ PJue CPUD. The 5.~' ",',,'~ 18 Iocattd at ~,*""..._ D'U. of...... ilIliUlIouIM. (Ca,,") "."'l'J"'...Ititel89G11on In $ecitoi\:~. '\bWiIehIP 41', "~18 ie8t. CoHIer COunty, FlorIcla., " , , .>,;:, , , All Intereetedpartlee , ~ ~~' 'and ,be ., ,&II'!l ~ heald. IndMdual8j:lealcilrt ~ IM.no 5. mln- utee'arany ~erp. Ex!*! wlt !.i(l~.)tiJf be jj~ed to 10 m1" each. P,ISQAs WlIl, ~.,autIlOtIZed to repreeant a ar6Up o(~"'~HmIt their ~Ion to,ten mlnutee: PerlIoIl8;Wl8hlng to have wriIIIIO Or graphic: rnatlIrtlllft -incIudep' In, the cCPe ~ packel8l11U1lt 8libmlt1llllP,1tiaiertaf a minimum of10daysprkll'totjle~~~ng. WrIt- , ten ~n18 muet b8 f11~Wtt":~'bepertment of ZonIng, and Land Qege~ ~ Prior to De. 0\IITlber 3. 2009. In, ,onMr ,to be 0Ct0~ at the pub- lic healing. All r!1lii8rlsla 1JI8d' iii .eel.tatlon before the CCPC wlII beoome a p~~ of, the I800ld and wlll-be tIV8IIabIf for ~,t!I the Board of County Comml8slOAers. If~. ' ' ' ""'"' c:cu.IIIlciouNf'f' C.R. - '<,"'".><.:" :,';',: ~ 'IIoJEOTI "-..,., ",,~,,:tIQN . ' ,," '. . - ". ,,-,,', '..;'.".'... ,~ 01 " - , ~' . ,,1. .ii' " " " 1-75 . S.R~"t4 Any ~ Who depldee ~ ~~n of,the ccpcW needarecO!d of !he A!', . ~n- l""tIMbto. and th8l8fOlt ~ lIMd ~,tn$ure that a ~ r8OOl'd of~ PI";_~ 1* made. which lnc~ all teetinlCllly .!lI\<I ~ l4pII\t whloh the appeIjif'l$ to be bliIIIed. '. i' . ; , ...... '.;, Collier (;ounty Planl)inQc;Oml~ Collier County, Flo~, ' . ' , . Mark Po. Strllln. Chalrtnen . , ,~'" AGENDA ITEM 9.( 8! County ,~ ..4r;'.l1l'~-- ___ -:...- STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: APRIL 2, 2009 SUBJECT: PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-1395l, OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, INC. PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Owner: Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc. 9405 Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ex!. Naples, FL 34120 Agents: Margaret C. PeITY AICP Senior Project Planner Wilson Miller 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 Jolm Passidomo, Esquire Chefi)' Passidomo 821 5th Ave. South Naples, FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner wishes to rezone 553.67010 acres fi'om the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Agriculture (A) Zoning District for a project known as the Olde Florida Golf Club. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, approximately 2 miles east of the Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier COUllty, Florida. (See illustration on following page) RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised (2) 3/17/09 Page 1 of 14 Attachment #4 '" ~ '<". _.'- ,~_M_".'__.~' , _~.'__"_"_'_'____ , s_ , .... lIJQYol~ O'!'<>I!..~~ ,.. . . L '" z o "'- ,. ...." ",0 9 -1 v ~ < , . '-~ 'i, i I t' - j -- I i ! , ,> 0',' ;- ., -----r' 4- i ~';' -~"'., n!:l'l T' -[C ,;;...;;;v , < p , ". ". ., ." ~\i , '-.'- i i ; .......-."""''''''''...... . , , D;; ;;1>',. 'I i -------._" . . !~ " , . . ., . . o . . . . . . . -l?, i - << . " I . Ii II '" . , . , , '" . "........ ". \ , -'," ----= ., , - 6, ~~>- ., , , , ., " . ., " ,;l- ~ ~ ul "'-';''" ~ . ,,~ -II" ~l 'i.. filiiis ;;t~i- , . f- --'I , I,'~-.. i' II . '" " . " -"""ifur" . I 1- _J t:::~..:;: , ! . .~ ,., ;::.- -..~ lUll i~,Y' ; 'I' , . . . ! .--_.- . . "~iI ...-- ~ l:- --.w ,,~;~<w:,- :\ . - }li~.E- =: - . I' "' -~-_.- ~~--- ~; ~- --.,."...,S'"~ ., . , -U" . . I:L ., v -.- .. ,vO"........,.. -.. --'0':;-'-""'" --.-- , , Ii . ::: ~' , . .. ~" " . I '. ..1'- . ., "- 'I I ~~, " ! . .... z ! ------" 0 0 ~,.- w- " , 'I< ~- . 00 , i. "'0 , -' ..~ :.:~ .1! ". i " I . ~~ -~-. _f '~.. I~, __ ] I, Ill! ~'" l' I L'" _1.. i' j , Ii I JlqiQ.l,Qk / ... . , . ii~ .'. :li~ ! o . i . , , '. , ,.,. ~ 1 !. S " . , , .. g' ~ . , . '. " , , , , " "" >., -" " , - p - " ., -,' .. , , , . - . t~ .'. - <i ~ ! j1 , lJ~ o~, I ---~- ~ ! " , , . - , < ,. , " . , ., " , ,- - "0 ::<1~ j~~ '. , ,. ~-- j I ! "~ I "--- ~1.""-'''':' b"""'~ ! -i ! a. <( :2: <.9 z - z o N J '" :ll ~ IX <( , ., 8 OJ N IX .. z o - .... .... W <L a. <( :2: z o - f- <( o o -J PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: As described in the nalTative statement included in the application, the petitioner proposes to rezone the subject site to Agriculture to allow "for a broader range of uses" and to provide a "greater flexibility for the land owner by allowing agriculture, golf course, single-family dwelling units and other uses by right, in accuruanct: with lht: FLUE [Futurt: Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan] and the Land Development Code." Given the GMP FLUE designation, up to 110 dwelling units could be developed on site. The petitioner's agent states in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) that, "The proposed rezone intends to preserve the existing 18- hole golf course and pelmit the addition of up to 110 single tinnily homes." The subject property was rezoned from the Rural Agricultural Zoning District to the Golf Course (GC) Zoning District with the approval of Ordinance Number 91-16 on February 12, 1991 (Petition Number R-90-23). As palt of that rezoning action, an agreement was entered into by the petitioner wherein certain improvements would be required as part of site development approval. Most of the improvements or conditions are reiterations of site development plan requirements. Subsequent to that rezoning approval, the site was developed with an eighteen-hole golf course and its supporting facilities. It should be noted that the proposed rezone back to the Rural Agricultural Zoning District utilized the "conventional or standard" rezoning procedure that does not require a master plan to be submitted as would be required if the property was rezoned to a PUD. However, the boundary survey provided with the petition indicates there is a large conservation easement over lands in the northeastem portion of the site. Site development issues will be addressed as palt of allY future development approvals that may be sought should the rezone be approved. Similarly, deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) cannot be sought as part of this rezone petition; any subsequent development would need to be in compliance with all federal, state and local development regulations unless variances are sought and approved through the appropriate procedure in effect at the time. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NOlth: East: A mixtnre of five, ten and twenty-acre tracts, most of which are either used for agriculturally (several tracts have single-family home also) or are undeveloped, all of which have a zoning designation of Agricultural with a mobile home overlay (A- MHO) Eight, 10-acre tracts and an 80-acrc tract, all of which are undeveloped and under one ownership, with a zoning designation of Agricultural with a mobile home overlay (A-MHO) scattered single-family homes, zoned Estates (E) Golf Club of the Everglades, a 260-acre golf course, zoned Agricultural (A) with Conditional Use approval for a golf course granted in Resolution Number 99-61 South: West: RZ.2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3/17/09 Page 2 of 14 _ 'T._"~'___'~'_'_.'~"_"___"_~_"_ ",_,.., ,. _ ""_"_'~'_~"""".._ w...,".~., _, ,.' ,w,,_._ .... ,,_~,....___.,.. , Aerial Photo GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN jGMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The Old Florida Golf Club property lies within the Agricultural/Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (IU"MUD), Neutral Lands, as depicted on Collier County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Golf courses and single-family residential units are allowed by right in the Neutral Lands designated areas. The IS-hole golf course, its clubhouse and maintenance facilities occupy the developed portions of the subject property. An existing conservation area comprising approximately 51 acres will remain unchanged. The County's Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program provisions were not applicable at the time of Olde Florida original approval. TDR program provisions apply only to extent that they prohibit the transfer of development rights into or out of Neutral Lands. The Olde Florida development will utilize only thc base density entitlements generated by developing property located in Neutral Lands. RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3/17109 Page 3 of 14 The Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Land Development Code (LDC) contain specific requirements applicable to new development within Neutral Lands. Certain requirements peliain to residential development. These items are discussed below. In the following review, FLUE and other GMP provisions are shown in italics, while staff analysis and commentary is provided in normal type. Neutral Land~: Neutral Land~ have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development. Available data indicates that Neutral Lands' have a higher ratio ofnalive vegetation, and thus higher habitat values, than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but these values do not approach those of Sending Lands. Ther~fore, these land~ are appropriate for limited development, if such development is directed away ji-om existing native vegetation and habitat. A lower maximum gross density is prescribedfor Neutral Lands when compared to Receiving Lands. Additionally, certain other uses permitted within Receiving Lands are not authorized in Neutral Lands. Within Neutral Lands, the following standard~ shall apply: 1. Maximum Density: 1 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres (0.2 units per acre). Maximum density: There are 553.6 acres in the Olde Florida property, which would allow a maximum density of 110 dwelling units. 2. Clustering: Clustering of residential development is allowed and encouraged. Where clustered development is employed, it shall be in accordance with the following provisions: a) {fwithin the boundaries of the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District, and consistent with the provisions of the Potable Water and Sanitmy Sewer Sub-elements of this Plan, central water and sewer shall be extended to the project. Where County sewer or water services may not be available concurrent with development in Neuh'al Lands, interim private water and sewer facilities may be approved b) 1he maximum lot size is one acre. c) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation of the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; an(1, creation, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. d) The minimum project size shall be at least 40 acres. The amount of detailed development information necessary to address provisions (a) through (c) above is absent as this is a standard rezone petition. The specifics of these provisions may be addressed fully at the time a subdivision plat is submitted for review. Olde Florida is a 553.6 acre development and meets the minimum project size requirement. 3. Allowable U~es: Agricultural uses; Singlejcllnily residential dwelling units, including mobile homes where a Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists; Multi:family residential structures; Dormitories, duplexes and other types of staff housing, as may be incidental to, and in support of, conservation uses; Group housing; Staff housing as may be incidental to, and in support of, safety service facilities and essential services; Farm labor housing; Sporting and Recreational camps; Essential services; Golf courses or driving ranges; Zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, or other similar uses; Public educational plants and ancil/my plants; Facilitiesfor the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste; Community fCtc/lities, such as, places of worship, RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3/17/09 Page 4 of 14 .. ,", .---. .-', '_"',-..", ~"... - ~._..._..^'_..,,_.. ,."'- ".~ "....--. --" '.-...._,.._,~,,- - ----,._-"_._-"-,.~._,.._,- childcare facilities, cemeteries, social and ji-aternal organizations; Sports instructional scho01s and camps; Earthmining, oil extraction and re1ated processing; Parks, open space, and recreational uses; and, Private schools. Golf courses or driving ranges are subject to the follOWing standards: (1) Go(l courses shall be designed, constructed, and managed in accordance with the best management practices of Audubon International's Gold Signature Program and the Florida Department ol Environmenta1 Protection. (2) In order to prevent the contamination olsoi1, swface water and ground water by tl", materia1s stored and handled by go!l course maintenance operations, gotf courses shall comp1y with the Best Managemenf Practices for Golf Course A1aintenance Departments, prepared by the Florida Department of Envirol1lnenfa1 Protection, May 1995. (3) To protect ground and swfi/ce water quality fimn ferti1izer and pesticide usage, goll courses shall demonstrate thefollowing management practices: (a) The use of s10w re1ease nitrogen sources; (b) The use of soil and plant tissue ana1ysis to adjust timing and amounf o/lertilization app1ications; (c) The use of an integrated pest management program using both biological and chemical agents to control various pests; (d) The coordination of pesticide applications with the timing and application of irrigation water; (e) The use of the procedure contained in lFAS Circular 1011, Managing Pesticides for Go!lCourse Maintenance and Water Qua1ity Protection, May 1991 (revised 1995) to se1ect pesticides that wi11 have a minimum adverse impact on water quality. (4) To ensure water conservation, golf courses shall inco/fJOrate the fo11owing in their design and operation: (a) Irrigation systems shel1l be designed to use weather station information and moisture-sensing systems to determine the optimum amount of irrigation water needed considering soilmoislure and evapotranspiration rates. (b) As availab1e, golf courses shall utilize treated eff/uent reuse water consistent with Sanitwy Sewer Sub-E1ement Objective 1.4 and its policies; (c) Native p1ants shall be used exclusive1y except for special pwpose areas such as golf greens, fairways, and bui1ding sites. Within these_excepted areas, landscaping plans sha11 require that at least 75 percent of the trees and 50 percent of the shrubs be ji-eeze-tolerant native Floridian species. At least 75 percent of the required native trees and shrubs shall a1so be drought t01erant species. (5) Stormwater management ponds shall be designed to mimic the functions of natural systems: by establishing shore1ines that are sinuous in configuration in order to provide increased length and diversity of the 1illoral zone. A Littoral sheil shall be established to provide a feeding area for water dependent avian .\pecies. The combined length of vertical and rip-rapped walls shall be limited to 25 percent of the shore1ine. Credits to the site RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3t17109 Page 5 of 14 preservation area requirements, on an acre-to-acre basis, shall be given for iiI/oral shelves that exceed these iiI/oral shelf area requirements. (6) Site preservation and native vegetation retention requirements shall be the same as those set forth in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District criteria. Site preservation areas are intended to provide habitatfunctions and shall meet minimum dimensions as set forth in the Land Development Code. These standard~ shall be established within one year. Based on FLUE provisions for golf courses in the RFMUD, requirements specii)' they shall be designed, constructed and managed in accordance with Audubon's Signature pl"Ogram. The Olde Florida Golf Course however, was designed and constructed betore the RFMUD was created and before Audubon Signature program certification was required. Audubon's Signature program is available only to newly proposed projects, including golf courses in the design or development stages. Audubon's Cooperative Sanctuary Program (ACSP) is the altemative program available to existing golf courses like aide Florida. Both the Signature and the Sanctuary programs are characterized as education and certification programs, and the two embrace significantly similar land management and natural resollrce conservation practices. Both include comprehensive management programs. Primary differences between the two programs involve not the land management or conservation practices themselves, but whether verification of ongoing program participation and compliance are conducted with on- site Audubon-certified visits or by submitting documentation to Audubon International - and the associated costs for doing so. 4. Native vegetation and preservation requirements: Native vegetation shall be preserved as setforth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. The petitioner has indicated that the existing 51-acre conservation area will be incorporated into the required preservation area. Strict compliance with CCME Goals, Objectives and Policies will be deternlined as pmt of any subsequent development order reviews. 5. Density Blending shall be permitted subject to the provisions set forth in the Density Rating System. No density blending is proposed for the subject propelty. In reviewing for compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and subsequent Policies regarding Smmt Growth principles derived from the Toward Better Places, Community Character Plan for Collier County, staff provides the following analysis. Policy 7. 1 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to ji-onting collector and arterial roads, except where no sllch connection can be made without violating intersection ;,pacing requirements of the Land Development Code. The project has direct access to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, a collector road. RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3t17109 Page 6 of 14 ,"..., . '~'"_''~.~_'"''' .. _.____~~__~...._.wu_._._'_',.".___.. .. ~~,,-"~_._....~..._'~..~.._~' - Policy 7. 2 The Counly shall encol/rage inlernal accesses or loop mads in an ~fJorllo help reduce vehicle congeslion on nearby colleclor and arlerial roads and minimize Ihe need for IratJic signals. Policy 7.3 All new and exisling developments shall be encouraged 10 connecllheir local slreets and Iheir interconnection poinls with adjoining neighborhoods or other del'elopmenls regardless ()fland use Iype. Policy 7.4 The COl/nly shall encol/rage new developments 10 provide walkable comll1unilies with a blend of densilies, common open .\paces, civic facilities and a range ()f housing prices and types. The amount of detailed development information necessaty to address these Policies is absent as this is a standard rezone petition. The specifics of these Policies shall be addressed fully at the time of SDP or a subdivision plat is submitted for review. Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that the rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this II O-unit project within the 5-year planning period. Vanderbilt Beach Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by tlus project is Link 113, Vanderbilt Beach Road East of CR-95 I. Thc project generates 52 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represcnts a 6.8 percent (significant) impact on this roadway. This segment of Vanderbilt Beach Road is cunently in the right-of-way acquisition process to accommodate a planned expansion beginning outside the five year capital improvement plan. The remaining capacity and Level of Service are not currently reflected in the adopted 2008 AUIR. Please note that portions of the project's access along Vanderbilt Beach Road are held in private ownership and arc granted via casements as shown on the Acccss Management Plan included in the application. No subsequent links of Vanderbilt Beach Road are significantly impacted. County Road 951 Impacts: No subsequent links of County Road 951 are significantly impacted in the Peak Direction during PM Peak Hour. Therefore, the subject application can be deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transp0l1ation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Environmental Element: There are no CCME issnes for this petition as part of the rezone action. All EnvirOlunentallmpact Study (EIS) , wetland and preservation issues will be addressed as pat1 of any subsequent development order review. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and has reviewed the criteria on which a determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Section 10.03.05.H. of the LDC. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of staff. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis for the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in tUl11 use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as part of the Zoning and Land Development Review provided below. RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3t17/09 Page 7 of 14 Transportation Review: Transportation Depmtment Staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. TranspOltation Planning staff can recommend approval of this project. Environmental Review: Enviromnental Review staff has reviewed this petition, and reconunends approval. The Environmental AdvisOlY Council (EAC) did not review this petition, and an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was not required because a conventional rezone does not require a site plan. An ElS will need to be provided with any subsequent development order approvals that may be sought if the rezon.ing is approved. Preservation areas will be addressed as part of development order review. Wetland line(s) will have to be verified and approved by the SFWMD prior to completion of next development order. Utilities Review: Public utilities staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection. According to the cunent 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates, the project location is within the Collier County Water - Sewer District Service Area. Per GIS, there is an existing IO-inch water main on Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. GIS does not show that the County owns sewer utilities in the right-of-way contiguous to this development. Since the project site is not presently serviced with centrally provided sewer, the project will need to utilize a septic system until central sewer is available. This project is located in the zone of the existing North Hawthorn Well field of the NOlth County Regional Water Treatment Plant. The rules and regulations for protection of well fields will need to be followed. All well sites and pipeline easements located on and close to this project will need to be shown on all future site development plans, PPL or any other site plan applications. Zoning and Land Development Reviews: Zoning staff has reviewed tllis petition and concurs with the findings of Comprehensive Platming. The proposed rezone and use is fOlmd to be consistent with the GMP. In addition, the proposed project will meet the Agricultural Zoning District criteria. According to LDC Section 2.03.01, the purpose and intent of the rural agricultural district is to provide: . . . . lands for agricultural, pastoral, and rural land uses by accommodating traditional agricultural, agricullural related activities and facilities, support facilities relaled 10 agricultural needs, and conservation uses. Uses that are generally considered compatible to agricultural uses that would not endanger or damage the agricultural, environmental, potable water, or wildlife resources of the County are permissible as conditional uses in the A district. The A district COrre~1}ond, to and implements the Agricultural/Rural land use designation on the ji/ture land use map of the Collier County GMP, and in some instances, may occur in the designated urban area. The maximum density permissible in the rural agricultural district within the urban mixed use district shall be guided, in part, by the density rating system contained in the fi/ture land use element of the GMP. The maximum density permissible or permitted in the A district shall not exceed the density permissible under the density rating system. The maximum density permissible in the A district within the agricultural/rural district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP shall be consistent wilh and not exceed the density permissible or permitted under the agricultural/rural district of the ./i/ture land use element. RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3/17/09 Page 8 of 14 -" -,-.......,..._--"--~--' ,_.~----,,-,_....,'''-,. ...-..-.. - - -"----"',""--,"-- -~.._,-_._._'-_.._.,_._.'" As noted on page 2, the petitioner is seeking this rezone to allow agricultural uses as well as single-family dwellings and golf courses and other uses by right. The proposed intent of the rezone appears to be in agreement with thc purpose and intent of the Agricultural zoning district and the list of uses permitted within it because the RFMUD-Neutral designation allows these uses by right. That designation is an overlay district which supersedes the limitations of the Agricultural zoning designation to allow additional uses (the golf course use) that would otherwise require conditional use approval in a non RFMUD-Neutral GMP land use designation. The subject property is surrounded by agricultural zoning on three sides-nOJih, east and west. To the north and east the lands are either undeveloped or used for agricultural activities. To the west is a golf course. To the south is the proposed Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and then single family houses within the Estates zoning district. If the rezoning is approved, the developer will be required to provide the minimum landscape buffers as provided for in the LDC in effect when future development is sought. At the present time, residential zoning or uses that abut agricultural zoning or uses would be required to provide a Type A buffer, which is a 10-foot wide landscape buffer with trees spaced no more than 30 feet on center. As indicated in the GMP discussion of this stafTreport the 553.6 acres in the subject site would allow a maximum density of 110 dwelling units. Excerpts from Lot Design Requirements for Principal Uses (LDe Section 4.02.01.A) [in feet, unless otherwise noted] Zoning District - _.~ Lot Area (sq ft) 217,800 Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard A 50 30 50 165 Floor Area of Buildings (sq. ft.) 550 GC None None None None None None All numbers shown are the required minimum amounts Maximum Building Height of 35 feet is the same in both districts LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" [Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in non-italicized font]: Rezone FindiJ!g!l J. Whether the proposed change 1I'ill be consistent 1I'ith the goals, objectives, and policies and fat lire land IIse II/ap and the elell/enls o{the GAfP. RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Page g of 14 Revised (2) 3/17/09 As noted in the GMP Consistency portion of this report, the proposed nses and development standards would generally further the goals and objectives of the FLUE and the applicable pOltions of the CCME and the TranspOltation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern is characterized by agriculturally zoned and used lands to the nOlth and east; agriculturally zoned lands uses as a golf course to the west; and the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension then Estates zoned lands with residential uses to the south. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed rezoning would not create an isolated zoning district because, as noted above the parcel is sunounded by agricultural zoning on thTee sides. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed.for change. As shown on the zoning map included at the begilming of this report, the existing district boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed zoning boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries. The location map on page two of the staff repOlt illnstrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject parcel. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessaJJJ. The proposed change is not necessary, per se; it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. The proposed zoning change is appropriate because its relationship to the FLUE (Future Land Use Element of the GMP) is positive. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The County's land use policies that ar'e reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP support the approval of the uses proposed at this location. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed rezone is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. If the 110 dwelling units are developed on site, the LDC required buffers and development standards should ensure that any future residential development is compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of trafjic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular trqfjic, ineluding activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3/17/09 Page 10 of 14 ,,~'_,_._,'._...."'''_'_' .. '._"W'__._."~_'_'_" ..". ,~__,. __ .. _ _~. "'_"~<_^,~'__.M'~_,'."_.~.""""'_'_"~ _._~_='.. _,___ , '~-'-'--'-------"'-" . --, The proposed change will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion over the amount cUlTently generated under the CG zoning. However, the surrounding property owners may perceive the rezone to the Agriculture Zoning District to allow additional dwelling units to be constructed as adversely impact traffic now on the local streets. Since the transpotiation analysis does not indicate that the traffic generated by this project would be considered excessive, staff does not believe the additional traffic would be considered incompatible. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The development that the rezoning could allow should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards as pmi of the local development order process that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water management and drainage system will need to be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and be compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will serious~y reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas since projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that are unique to the zoning district in which it is located. These development standards and others apply generally and equally to all zoning districts (i.e. open space requirement, corridor management provisions, etc.) were designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air does not adversely affect adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Since the proposed change is deemed to be consistent with the GMP and LDC, staff is of the opinion that propetiy values should not be adversely affected. This is a subjective detetmination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject prOpctiy. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 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 deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Properties around this property are already partially developed as previously noted. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent propetiy. Therefore, the proposed rezone should not be a detelTent to the improvement of adjacent properties. RZ.2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3/17/09 Page 11 of 14 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development complies with the GMP, a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. There is no reason the property could not be used in accordance with existing zoning. Any petition for a change in land use is reviewed for in compliance with the GMP and the LDC with the Board of County Commissioners ultimately ruling what uses and density or intensity is approved or, on the contrary, if the petition is denied. This petitioner is proceeding through the proper channels to garner that Board ruling. 14. Whether the change suggested is out o{scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed development complies with the GMP requirements for the uses proposed and density would not be allowed to exceed the GMP allowances. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the zoning district will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. 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. Any development anticipated by the proposed zoning district would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensivc evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as patt of the building permit process. RZ-2008.AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3/17/09 Page 12 of 14 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 GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The project will have to meet all applicable critelia set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities for and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the OMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is rcsponsiblc for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as patt of the rezoning process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. To be detcnnined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. Based upon the above analysis, staff is of the opinion that the proposed change to the Agricultural Zoning District is not anticipated to have an adverse effect upon the slllTounding area. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIMl;, The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on Februaty 19, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the Golden Gate Estates Libraty. Five people from the public attended, as well as the applicant's team (Margaret Peny, Jeff Peny and Tom Trettis of WilsonMiIler, Inc. and Bill Barton and Tom Wildenhaus from Olde Florida Golf Club) and county staff. Ms. Peny presented an overview of the requested Rezone their client is seeking. Ms. Peny explained that by rezoning the property from its current Zoning of Golf Course to Agriculture this would allow the property owner more uses, such as single family homes. There was no opposition to the rezone, but the following comments were made by those in attendance. One resident wanted to know where the access to the property would be. The petitioner responded that it would be in the same place as it is today; no change is proposed. The same resident wanted clarification that no commercial uses could be built with this rezone, and the petitioner assured him that commercial use is not an approved use under agriculture or in the Rural Fringe Neutral Area and that in order to allow commercial uses, a Growth Management Plan Amendment would be required. Several residents asked if there were any plans to remove the golf course. The property owner stated that he intends to keep the current golf course intact. A discussion also occurred regarding the alignment of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommcnds that the Collier County Plamling Commission (CCPC) forward a recommendation of approval of Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3/17/09 Page 13 of 14 PREPARED BY: (J ,d 13-iYJ SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER TMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DATE REVIEWED BY: I t j (JrO HE DI ASHTON-CICKO CHIEF ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY :> II ~ J O?) DATE /) J ( 11 ( , )'(".(1 '. J RAYMO D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPAR MENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW . / t /. !I) ')",1/ I : /-, i ATE ~I Y;V). I _Q/) SUSAN MURRAY ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 3> APPROVED BY: '" H K. SCHMI , ADMINI TRA TOR A MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the June 9, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: \J1JP - l..{d?/cP') DATE RZ-2008-AR-13951 Olde Florida Golf Club Revised 3/12/09 Page 14 of 14 ,..".'",,", .".....,<~..."'~'"' ~,.," ~""'>.,""""'. <, ".-<". ",-"~~;".>","~., '.,~ .~.......--'>_..~....._....--".. -. , Ordinance with ORIGINAL eepe stipulations (from 4/2/09 cepe hearing) ORDINANCE NO. 09- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A GOLF COURSE (GC) ZONING DISTRICT TO AN AGRICULTURE (A) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, LOCATED AT 9405 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION, IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 554+/- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 91-16; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Margaret C. Perry, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., and John Passidomo, Esq., tepresenting Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification ofthe herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the real property more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, located in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Golf Course (GC) Zoning District to an Agriculture (A) Zoning District for a 554+/- acre project known as Olde Florida Golf Club. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly, subject to the stipulations, attached hereto as Exhibit B and agreed to by Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc. Tbe stipulations shall also be binding on the successors and assigns of Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc. Olde FL Golf2008-AR-t395I rev. 4/09109 1 Attachment #5 SECTION TWO: Ordinance 91-16 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Depmtment of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _ day of ,2009. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: DONNA FIALA, Chairman , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ~~~" Heidi Ashton-Cicko Assistant County Attomey Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Stipulations 08-CPS..(J0902l25 Olde FL Golf2008-AR-1395I rev. 4/09/09 2 "" '''>>'''__~ _ '~<>.k',_.__...'"'_~''~~_''''"''' __ ", ........, ORB 9948 P9 1420 DOROTHY H, WILf\E~1 CLERII PC ':O\)NT'r', FL EXHIBIT "An All of Section J I, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, less the East half of the Northeast quarter thereof, Collier County, Florida, And Less: AU tlat pari of SectkJn 31, TOWNMp'" South, Eho.," E~'. ColIJer Coun1y, Flofld., beln. motl PIl1kulllly de.scrlbed lJ rollow,: B~OINNINO It th, .oulllwell corner or Section]'" 'fowmhlp 041 SQulh. Rane' 27 EUl; thence aJan, th. wen 111'14 oru;d Se(1k)n 31, North 01609''''" 'Ne,sl 171.66 (eel; thenee Ie.vlo, uld wc.sl IIfH1 North 1I..s0'J6~ E.uII27,~9 (eel; thence Norlb 6'-1 j'n- Ew 311.13 feeij !hent. SOUlh 13637'40. EaJll014." rUt: lh.ne. Nor1h 12 -"'3P" East 9O.n red; III."" Nonll 74'W44' West 4)M4 rH': III"". NO'th 19'59')6' W.., Slim r...; _~_ III.",. Nonll47')2'40' W", '14.00 rlfl:--;:;R ('o~~~ III.... North 29'27"4' W... IJI~41't,:1,;, _'--C_ (fA ....... III.... Nort~ 06'47'21' WOSl ~~ ~f~/ ~: y'>,..... III."" North 1$'09'12' Bael) r...: ~ /. III..,. No,lII 04'$0'41' Wl"~ r...: 'hone. Nonll .,',,',.' ,r....--, III.... Nollil 2"40'09' S, t_......"--- III.... NortJo )2'24'''' ... ll.U rUt: \'/{R thene. North 01.23'0111 Will U t ~O- '] III.",. Nonll 24')0"2' Bael 0 ~ i' D III.." NOI1lt 63'0)'41 lluI I. ~ thone. Sootfl CSO'24'49' 6 ~ : [-, th.... S"'"" 69'3.1'20' 71::;' "'; -- ~.'; /:x:: lhi!nct SOlIdi 6lJi."S'$4. ).:51 (eet; ~ ~_) th....S"1II4I'21'2.l' ~lr...: ''''. 6' III.... S""'" 09'2)'$9' . 4 rw; L C. , III.... SOIltIlI5O'$6' t9' lluI, ; , / III.... South 16"0')0' lluI. ,(I)~" ~/ <\\.,/ 'h.... 5"'"" 63'47'W Bill 101. (i~b..,'--..._.----,- C'\) // th.... SOIltIl61'42"19' BaelII5O.1)r..t:l lrp C1\~ ;/ .h.",. SoolII $"09'20' Bael246.90 r...;'--'-._::___-...- 'h.... Sooth /7'0"46' BaelIJ$.69 rw; th.... SoolII O$'lO'20'I!IlC 174.19 rHt; 'h.." Sootlo )6'''' 19' Bael.U9 r.,,: thence South 01IlZl'3911 West 19','9 (Wi Ihene. South 20'0'56' W", '1.31 rc~; th.... NortJo 19'11'$)' Bael m.49 r...; 'hm. 5""'" 00''''01' ElIl600, 71 r..,; thence Norah "'.0'00. I!att '319,17 feci 10 I point on ,", eut 1/4 corner 1;1( laid Section 31: then<< Ilona tht '1JIllator uW Setllon 31, $Ol,Ith 00'39'23' EISI 2612.S' fed to tho f;ouLhtlSI corn,., ol..~ $e.etlon 31j th.ne. 110111 th..OIIth '1M ors.k! 5,,<10' 31. SoolIIU'Jl'W W", 51J6.0' r,,"O III. Point of 8t,h",'n, 01 lM pucd h...,ln de.scdbed: eoncllnln,UC.U acres mol' 01 leu; wbJtct to e-uemtnll Ind rtJlrlcdOM or fetord; bearln,. art baUd on the louth 111M or said SectIon) I. !:.tIn, South 87 'S5 '34' W~l. " , . , . I ' " ~"., 1,_ ,..' n. 0)' "C ". ( \i:.~'-'''1.' '.:- . . ~"J J,,,,, ,IN Ii n .. J.' .f /.:~;"ecelvt..'I{j. Page 1 of 2 .. ... ... ~ .. ...... ..... ... c..> ;g .. ..- ..- .." ... ... .. .. . . . 11 . .,'" .," i'.' .' .' ! ~-~ IB6~ WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PElUl'\ llOO.K tII,hllal, I'h.Jl~'<f, SlIMyon. undJUpol AIf},nIl:U, I!/lWbOM'KlIlal C4hIW~UIU A eo"lll'\ltlton Mu..." _,,.,,...Ioo"QOI,,,I."11Ol,llIlIIDlllIrtN.I"JJ"""~>>oI,H.,la,l'Itr\l.IUIl'1I1J1$olI~f..(ItJI61Hm Dtmlpll~n QrOJ~ Flofldl OolfClub Pbillll blln,. pm o(Secllon 31,TOWll.Ihll' 41 SoullJ, Rl/IJI'l1l!ul.Colltel COUJlly, PJorldl All \III' Pill or S~llo" 31, Town.lhlp 41 $0\I1Il, R.n,. 11 En'. C011l~f Cllul)', Florldi, bel". mort ~t11culll'1dt,l(rlbc.duColJowll BIl'OlHN1Na 1111I. w1llhWtU tornet ors~clfon 31', Town.lhlp U South, RlIl" 21 ~I.\t; 1.1lennIlO"I,Ih'Wc.MlInloraaldSttt10nJI.N<1nhOI'Qg'J.. W~1171,66rrtl: lhtllC.l~y II 1I1d wNllln. North 118'SO'36" Eullll.49 rw; lll'R~' Northfil'I"21' fln 312.23 (uU IIIlnC4SoulllU')l'40"E13110N.19(UI: lhlmNonllI2'JI'3P"I!UIPO.nf<<ti Ihlnet N'onJl'4'3C'44" W,u14U.U ful: lll'fttt Hol1.ll U',S~'J6" W~, '31.03 ftlt: tIIeRc,Nortll47')l'-40'WulJ24.00r'cl; Illlft(t Nouh 19'27'34" Wm DI.4i fUI: IhtIK,Nllr1II06'41'21"\'h.l1211.~Orul: lhUluHoflh SS'W'\Z" Easl 16IS.99fctl: IIIIRUHorth04''sO'4B'W<<! 2'0.00 (ut: 1l1,~t. Honh 8\l'j1'SB'1!Llt 940.00 luti IMRttNorth2J'40'09'elJl,SSO.OOfut: thlhetN()r1h~2'14'H' Wen IJI.81rU.lj t!llne,No,th01'2)'Ol'WUIIIU.92frll; tlIlne,NClr1J!H'30'12' E)jI1JO.~Of.ct; IhfRC. twrtll6)'OJ'41' e&lt 71.11 ft.l: lhl""t Saulh 60'14'49' llLlI 68.61 ful; Ihln~.So\l1ll69'''''O'EuI11l.nrul: Ihtllc,Soolh66'4S'H"El.ltIOJ,17(w; th'MtSouI114I'21'l,S'East$S.71(w; t!ltRctSOUlh09'2)'S9'EutI46.Hlul: Ihln" Soulh 6O'W 19' E...ll(,iI.9Sful; lh'nc.Soulh86'1(l'JO' EI>I1169.68 f..I; lhlnclSouth 6"41']5' ELlllOU9 ["I: ~"'--':':-R' C-,..........., th,ne, Saulll !SI'W 19' E~ 160,1J [uJ,......... i't ()( , IhCnCOSa~II1SI'09'20'EUI146.9~O(t1I': ~~~,.:.'.-:..--..~ J)" ~ Ihtnc,Sollrh "'08'46'E'lIllj<;S el.\-;:.-...... --.... .(v').. !hlne,SlluOlOS'JO'20'IIaU I. . .f J:-, IhlnctSOIIlhJ6'U'19'Eul " , IheR~tSllUlhOI'2I'39'W 193. tlll!'-'-_ lh!netNorth89'~I'$J' \ 13.49 lu; f Lhc~eISOu\hOO'31'01' 151 .1,("",-, .-' "'""N."""."....." '7E~~'I' :!pl I('~ "~I ".. I; 1I11neasllmillllwllln o(,~1 S'e 0113, ()~ i9' e :1/16', (c lhel()utll 1 C(Ilnerar..IdSwlon]; ~ lllm..loniLhI"'~thl ,fl$ S 1!.!Iw) S '!Ii l' S' 4 YurSlJ a ftlOthi:!! m ofD'iIMlniofLhepat'I:h1/,c .!bill: .~_ t_ _ ("""'C tOlllllnlna2SU4Iere.5mOltOrQ1;' 'l~; IUbJtCllow'm'nlJ.ncl~'r1ell ~ttsf.t rdj ~'I\I'.':.:J beJflnillflbJlwonlhIIOUlhlln\.'rif.pl SeetIOIl)l,b!ill,SOUlhll'SS7-v-t:.e.! () WILSON. MILLER, nAII.iQN & P l\(rN '-..." ~!., ;_~<.:~_ '-..0" '-- ~V' . ,<\, .v.;.....".,... "-~~ -_.-.).' ..<,."..... ..... - ---' ., -/,"/'\h~il.:,<,\;\1. r: OAT . !br~'~'1RC......:::/;' J,'!J~,j.j}-<.IB.ii.e:...,~~ _ C. P'S "~'"~ ____ .--...__- llJ "'..rl~!1-J..v.:,. ...1 ur'. ..... ..~____', :.,)?...l~{,r.:~f(~o'.i::: b~.r...r.~.S?....,:~~...<., " Not ulJd unlUI ~mbllmll with lht ProICsllonal', ml, "~'r.~y'.o'1':~:,/,~~~,.,: '~-"}"I~~"." .'.. .' ...~.:.:;{:;.~;Ii\f.r~.. I' . .,...f ,.. ,)"'_'c" _._,.-....- DV W,O. Aer. Dlle; um fL.l097 (KB:~Jdl AU!:1l1121,1993 EXHIBIT "A" "7lItHII"O>IO.11O N~l'lu 11Jl1~t_ f"IIIlI"HlI~ F'mMyen lI111tll-IOIO r..IUlftJI-,m SlUlI~r~ 111)jllf.Jt90 Fu(tlJlm..1Jl u.k,"",,1 111116l1.lm fl>jlUlt.!l.om Page 2 of 2 0008\2 PAGE4 -_...~. ...~- P~,...~,4 ..4 Vo<l'I" \, Qr". f.1 r.~ .'6' .r (OHIEK CU\JllfT, H~~IO.\ QII1GIH L 5J10Ct, CHl=IC '--".." - -_.......--...~..~_..._._-_.__..~~----, ... "-'.~.. .,..,,,.,~.~......,......-...,;'............--<-,-,.,-,~.,~---.,_.. ,-..--...-.- ~---._,~_._..._~--.... EXHIBIT B ~ulations 1. The property will retain the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for its golf courses, and it shall be subject to the rules and regulations for golf course operations for properties designed as neutral lands under the County's Growth Management Plan. 2. No density has been awarded by virtue of approval ofthis rezone. 3. Any uses or changes shall be brought back to the Collier County Planning Commission in the form of a Planned Unit Development process for review and approval of all categories as ifit were a Planned Unit Development. 4. The setback on the western boundary of the property shall be 100 feet to allow County to acquire easements, if needed, in the future. Ordinance with REVISED eepe stipulations ORDINANCE NO.1 0- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSNE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A GOLF COURSE (GC) ZONING DISTRICT TO AN AGRICULTURE (A) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, LOCATED AT 9405 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION, IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 554+1- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 91-16; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Margaret C. Perry, AICP, ofWilsonMiller, Inc., and John Passidomo, Esq., representing Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the real property more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, located in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Golf Course (GCl Zoning District to an Agriculture (A) Zoning District for a 554+1- acre project known as Olde Florida Golf Club. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly, subject to the stipulations, attached hereto as Exhibit B and agreed to by Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc. The stipulations shall also be binding on the successors and assigns of Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc. Olde FL Golrz008.AR-1395 1 Rev. 10/28/09 I Attachment #6 0' '" _ _ ___".. __ .. ....____,,_. _,...,_.__._._..._ ,.'0_" _, ."..__ "_,,', ~~. '... .~_~.,.,,~.. .~ .""","~,~~__,,,~,_,,,,o__,__,,_,_ _.__.____._ ""__'~______e~.__"_____~__"""'__' _.. SECTION TWO: Ordinance 91-16 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, tills day of ,2010. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk , Chainnan Approved as to fonn and legal sufficiency: '''\) \ \.,\\'" " Y \"" \0 Heidi Ashton-Cicko Asst. County Attorney, Land Use Section Chief Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Stipulations OS-CPS-00902133 HFAC 10/28/09 Olde FL Golf 2008-AR-1395 I Rev. 10/28/09 2 . . , ORB 'I DOROTHY H, '48 P9 1420 IoIILJiEf" CLERf\ PE ,:.:,IJiH',. FL ,'. EXHIBIT "A" All of Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, less the East half of the Northeast quarter thereof, Collier County, Florida, And Less: All that part or SeedOR 11, TOWNhlp <4. South, R1111,17 Ell!. Collier County, florida, belt'll mocI p....dcululy described U (OIlOM: BEOINNINO II 111, loulhwat C'Qrner or $ecdcn JI", TOWNhlp 41 South, Ran., 11 EUI; thence alonl &hI wQllhw or..ad Section] I, North 0 1'09"". We5t 17 1.66 (II!~; thencelelvlnlllld wal Unt Norlb ".SO')6' East 127,.49 rtel; then" North 6"11'71' ElSl )11.n re..: thenc;e South 1l'J1'''O~ East 1074.79 feet; du~ne, North 12 '31']0' Em 90.:51 rut: the.e. North 74')4'44' WOSI 439,14 reet: thMCe North ""9'36' Wesl ,lI.O) (eet: _______. ' the." North 47')1'40' Wac )Z~.oo r ~IZ C' ----""- thene. North 29'27')4' W... Ill. ~t;lP'O(;A >-.. thene. Nonh 06'47'1" Wac E V- --~~ V /' ~ thence North "'09' Jr EaM . Cd; ........., 1-->.. \ thence North 04'50'4" W r...: Ihene. Nortlo 19'51'$1' :&HOd:-, thence N.rth 22 '40'09' 5 :Ocii... . thence North )2'24']5' au 3'.1] reet: thence Nonh 01'23'02' W... ;II 0 '0 1 ~r 7? thene. Nonk 24']0.U I!asl 0 r ; ~ VI thence NonII63.cn'.7 Eat ,., feet II \ '. thenN South 60'14-49- , ~ I ./.~' .... ,1._ I th S~ ~"''20' . 7'''''' . .--.' c. --I;' , 0, ().- I ~ UVVI vr _ '.J eet, '''1 ' ~-., J thence $oudl66...,:t,.- ).$7 (eef; oJ,),I - 'I I tho... S..d14I'2"25' ~7 r...; -{:? /,-"')-'j thenceS....09'1]'"' . H.... ,,\. _... I llIence Soudo W56"9' ElSl .9 :>~ 1.-/ thence _16"0'30' ElSlI .4) , ~ 'Y Ihenco South 65'0"]5' ElSllot. }E~----_/' \.'>/ thene. Soudo 61'42'19' ElSll60.l] ! IfF C n~.. C./' .henc. Sou1ll5l'09'20' ElSl246.90 reel: ~~_::.-----/ .h.ne'South 17'0"46' ElSlIl5.69 r...; thence Soulllll5']0'20'1!asl174.19 reo'; thenco S...~ 36'22"9' ElSll.U9 ro..; th.neo South 01'21']9' W... 193.59 r...; Ihenc. south 10..,'.16- Wcsc "'.31 (Cd; thence N..... 19'2I'51'1!asll]2.49 re..: th..... S.... 00']1'07' ElSl 600.72 r...; thence Hardt .1..0'00. Eat 131'.17 (eet 10 . polru on lh. uIt III, COfatf or uld Section 31: thence 61... die WlII...hald S...Io. 31, South 00')9"2)' Eas' 2612.53 rOOl to tho _thus, corner o( ntd Secck7n 31; ch.ne. 610ft' th....th..... .hald Se<lIo. )I, SOIIth 17'55')4' We" 51]6.0' r... '0 tho PoI.1 .r Dql...... .r.... poml be...lo d01CrIb<d; cont.,.'ftI2RI4 oct.. ..... or I...: subJeec to euementl Ind tetuJedonr or record; burhles Ir. based on tfIl1louth 11M ohaJd SeetJon J I, belnr South I7.SS'J4~ West. , '. ~ ,-' ~ ~: J 1,:,~:: '..i~ I,;:x,umenl - f ...: <:J lacl'I'fC'd ,. "' .. .. .. ~ .' ...... ....... - ....... ;g .. ..- ..- .... - .. .. .. -~,.^.~,'-"""~"" - .......-. -.. ....~.......... .."~'_.....".,.. ..-..._,..._,,~...'.''-'''' .. """-,,,-,.~~.~---=~~,,-,,--"- II . - ...;-' '. ,. .", ''1-'"'- . . )."....,'..." I" .' .,... ," --- I 8 S \ WILSON, MILLER. BARTON & PEIUt\ ooe.K E!n,lroeuo. P'luIMn, SurvryP<1. LondJl.lpl! ,'.";011"'''. enri,."mu'"' CONU~'"lJ" c.,f\lll'\f<ll<>" !olon,,,.. _ ~.oIo.~ c...... S,lu ltll,llXI 001""'4<0 ~.....,..,. had. No'.... F\ao\d. 111'<1. (1111'-''- '"1''11'''),1''' DcJcrlplloll of Old Floddl OlllfClull PhUI I bo)n.lplllo(S<<;llon31, Towfl.lhlp ~I South, 11""1127 EI,Il.ClIllJerCaunty. Ftodd. AU tllll p.rt of S~llon ll, TowlUhip ~B Souill, FI..ns, 21 Eu!, Collltr Counly, Florldl, bel"1 mllr~ plt11eularlyclelcrlbed u(ollowl~ BEOINNINO II U11 SOIIlhwt.lt :OtnU af SWlon J 1, TlIwmhlp II Soulll, R"". 11 E:a.n; Lhcncolllonrlll,,,,UlHneo(uldSDctlonJ!,NorthOl'Q9'14"W..1171,66fetl: 1h~.lnvlnB ul4 11/911100 North U'SO'.l6" East 121.19 r..l: Lhcn" Nor1h 61"ll'11" Eul 312.13 fC.I; mlntll5oolhU'17'40' Eut 1074,79 r~l; Lhue.Nonh 11'31'39' EUI90.~2 r...l; IhcIICIHor1h7."]C'4-4'Wc.l(4)9.Uf.el; \hcnnNor1h 19"59'J6' Wed S]8.0J f...f; thcnceNot'1ll47'n'40'We.ltJ24.00fcCI; \hence North Ig"n')4' Welt tJ 1.44 fUI; \hcntlNlIrth06",7'1I'We.llHB,)Ofw; thcneINorlhU"Q9'lrEuI16IS.99Iecl; chene. HOM 04'50'00 Wr..rl 2~O,OO rUI; Ihnc,,"'ot'lh19"Sl'SloEuI940.00fecl; thenc.NorLhn"40'0II'e.ul~IO.OOrecl; IhenUN0l1h]2'1,']J" WCl;IIJI.IJ (cct; thene. NlIM 01'2J'Ol" Well 1114,92 (etl: thenec Nort!l 24"]O'U' EOUI 230.40 feel; !hcnetNOcili6J'OJ'H' Eut71.71 fcct; !henc.Soulh60'24'49" Eutt>I.67 'COI; lhenc.Soulh69"lS'10'Eu[ 178.Jlfw; !hencoSOIIlh66'4S'S4"Eull0J.57fw; IhcRCCSOq!h4I'II'15'EulSI.?7f..I; thencaSoulhQ9'lJ'S9'EutI46,74(ccl; thenc.Soulh60'S6'19'El<1161,9Sfect; thcnceSoulh 16"IO'JO' Eu\ 169.68 feel; ll"nc.Soulh 6S"47']5" Eal 101.59 (eet, ~- ..- '-'" '-~ Ihence Soulh 61"41'19" ElUI16O.1) f'~l/\' \ f- R C () />.,~ IhellCcSoulhSI'09'10' EUI146.90Jeett\. ,,-' _.:.-,-------.- _'" .J );' tl,enc,SoulhI7'OS'46"EntIJS,69r.'i'll>--"- -........~\ r-.~ thence SOIlih OS'JO'10" EUl 1~4, t<.l ~e(;/' ~ , t ~ . IhenceSoulhJ6"n'19"Eu()l5,JN~cr: l' , lh.nee Soulh OJ 'Ji.)9' W.,(19),SJl-'rt61:-._-- , \ \, (henceSoo1h20'43'St;"W tS7 lfe.W) e. ' " , thence Nonh 8~"21'S)' I 13 .4~ rC'I: ..... ' tlleRCGSoutIlOO'lB'Ol' t60,7 <eIV .-1--" \ ' lhe~t' Nonll 81'40'00' .nIl .1yt'i ~ i1~e ~~cr-- 5 .Uon I; (;I)merofnldScCllonJ; ~ ~ thetlte.IOftcll1l'OlIlhl1 f:U1\1 S II :) S I!. 1'~', e.IlSl I !tlolif~<rnt of Bechmllla: of the plfC 1'.l1e~ fu..... @: -:.::...--'" c__\ . l I cellltllnlnc 254.84 Ice" morl Ot 4:i; ~,,:J:::; $\JbjeclION51m.nUlndn:slrlcll i;di\t lIrd; ~1k k:J b.lrlnp Jrl ~ued on thr south li~\q;PI Section 31, bclnr South 8'l"S..-'-i{,q,wei 0/ WILSON, MILLER, BARTON ~ P~rf'1N~, '..'/ . C/., "eJ "'-. / .< ,.' -' "'.. , 11 . J Q ;J. 11 '-.."f:' Lo,-;----<,(.\ \\>~.:\C,:r:\,. av"}Vfk.A-. c;::' yl....... D^TE--:::a:J;(as4r.~.--::/;:'/ .J.t!l:;:;'~/!rq,\,~: Michie! C, LI~urc, P,LS, 14147 ----..::~__~~::..__...__' ,,~.,~,~,,:t~;~rn;'_,'~ , ;J,:'y;~\~t;;~...,\ :- . ,.''f.',' '".><~,.,,-,..,,-,. "''':()>~'''''':)'"\''''''''<'/r'''' ,;!,J,,'., "':""'\,' ".1,-,.1:,....,.. , " "';'.c:.~ ,~rl".~, ',,'.r' ';i.. ~" ~ ~ .' " 1 NOl Vllld UNC<' cmboulod wllh Ihe rroi',,"'I"n.I'~ ...1 W.O, Ref: 0.11: IS775 4L-IO~1 (KB:kjd) AUI",;t1'l,1991 EXHIBIT "A" ,tJlJ\').Q,,/7IQIUJ<l L<tioltu"J 11Il1.....'411 f"IIIJl~1l N.'" l.lJl"''- F.oIIU]"l-"!_ FonMyrts (Itllm-lllO f..IIIJJ'~lln SarlUcHO (1llIJI1')IlIO f,,{,IIIJTl...l1 ',' ,;.''- ,.... . . ,o'J.., ; "".', ,":";.: ' . .">"',' .'i.-,-,,: .' . , ~. 1;. '."" " . . '..:. . . .",c:'-.';:' ....,; , 1-.1.,;';';"';'1'';;'';;:;_'''' W1f'J,"""" ", 4:i1:I;,t'it~...t'ji';:ri.. 0008\2 PAllE~ ..- Rf(~"I.j ."~ '.' l! "j 10 Of l\~ "t ...,., " of COLlHH WU,tfl, rlO~IOl DWIGHT L !ollerC\:, CLOX .",'. -,","V.J\S; .. , :.' - :.~;:::.l1l ,:...". ".,- ""'. ,,~~'c'~l."l " "\'<ot""'-"';''''-' , ' . '..... . ti;~'-"' - ,-. ':.. ,,~_,~ I': "_"';i?:n:-i ", . <"'}.!\{J . .'. ,.i\1~/.," '. .:-;~,::~~::,.;.~11'~.r~.. ',:::-::-' "",:\,'''~~i)~ .....!,'.~",:,<.:'!l.;.:-;-...; ,'._"...<>F.'.'" """".,.,-,"''-'" ",'",." "~ " ",,-:~,.',,:,,"':i':,'~.'" ','>.':::"",\lI .,,',C-_"':.,'.iil. ...,,;'1:,,-:"3 ,. .. c'" .'.~ .'. ',\ , ,;" .:,.-, , I '--'--l ,,,,,:~, '" --,~ :",.'.j' , :,;~, ""~ Ji~ ,,''7'$, , I EXHIBIT B ~pulations I. The property will retain the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for its golf courses, and it shall be subject to the rules and regulations for golf course operations for properties designed as neutral lands under the County's Growth Management Plan. ;?" Ne-4ensity-has been awarded-lJy virtue oHlJlpHlval-ef.this rezone. ~ . 4, 2. The setback on the western boundary of the property shall be 100 feet to allow County to acquire easements, if needed, in the future. ....-'^-_._..,.".._-_...,,~" " .. ..___.,.__,,~...,,'___...d.._ NEW DIRECTIONS IN [JLANNINC" DESICN .'":: [",C!NE[RII\JG_ SiNCEI9S6 WilsOnMiller@ ... RZ-2008-AR-13951 REV: 4 OLOE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB Project: 2008100005 Date: 8/20/09 DUE: 9/18/09 August 20, 2009 Ms. Kay Deselem, AICP Principal Planner Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club Dear Ms Deselem: The above-referenced petition was previously reviewed by staff and was forwarded to the CCPC with a recommendation of approval. The CCPC considered this petition at their April 2, 2009 meeting and recommended approval; however, the conditions of approval associated with the petition were somewhat confusing. After the CCPC action, our team coordinated with various County staff including Joe Schmitt, Susan Istenes, Ray Bellows, Jeff Klatzkow and you, and also with Mark Strain in an effort to arrive at an agreeable solution and to address the stipulations of approval by the CCPC. A conceptual rezone master plan has been prepared which we believe will address the issues raised by the CCPC and will hopefully be endorsed by them. We are also hoping the CCPC will agree to the removal of stipulations 2 and 3. Enclosed with this submittal are nine copies of the following: . This cover letter . Conceptual Rezone Master Plan (24 x 36 and 11 x 17) . Original CCPC conditions of approval We understand lhat you will distribute this information to County staff for review and that they will have 30 days to provide you with any comments After this submittal has been deemed sufficient, hearings will then be scheduled before the CCPC and the BCC. It is the responsibility of our client to cover the advertising costs for the CCPC hearing and for the postage for property owner notification letters for the CCPC hearing, and per your direction, a check in the amount of $2,624 is included with this submittal. Thank you for your continued assistance in processing this rezone application. coordination and cooperation. We look forward to continued Sincerely, " -' / /? /1 (0" />' /J/,?1.>'Y /t '-"7 Margaret Perry, AIGY Regional Manager, Senior Associate I Attachment #7 cc: Bill Barton, aide Florida Golf Club John Passidomo, Cheffy, Passidomo David Hurst, WilsonMiller, Inc. Jeff Perry, WilsonMiller, Inc. Tom Tretlis, WilsonMiller, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 800.649.4336 239.649.4040 f 239.643.5716 WlIsonMlller.com 611612009-213973-Ver.l-MPERRV N0107.015.001. PZON_32525 -.--. ,:-'~ -I -=- 0 :IJ Z :t> IZO m G') mo, "tI )> m OJ" :II s: z oCm m m "tJ c )>S2::o en .. r- )> JJzo m )> ::::r z 0 -< 090 -I m m ~OJc: Z s: 0 -cZ 0 -t e Z-I-I G') '. 0 :t> cz-< l s: ::j ~oO "tJ "tI r- :II r- m m en-l::o m )>c::S2 -I m r- ::j -I ~ Z~z ~j m ('" 0=1)> 0 C ' ...)> ::j :Dmz z ." C:'- m moo m r. 0 r\' C o-lm :II ~ :II -t OoZ .. \' s: 0 ::0- 0 0 "'\ o )> . -t enoo z ~, ::I: 00-.....1 -I :II mJJN ::I: --! m ""C~~ m ~ m )>en::o -I - JJ-m )> W -IZo to - ~(j)c: s: r- m-l- m Z ZI::O _-Im~ r- e m -I ~OJ-I :!1 m :i 0 I en ,,)>)> :t> 0 "tJ "T1 ,JJ-I C ." r- 0 00)> C -I m 00' :II l;; :II ::0,,' ::I: -< - , m m m :;EO 0 en 0 OOJ en c "C e . c: GJ > :II :II :CZ-< en Z 0 )>-1- Z ::O-<~ -I 0 ~oen "\/' -I 0 s: Ooen \,,~ ::I: r- s: Z~I m m m -l~)> ~J to )> Z c-, 0 :II -I ::0 en': 0 )> r- en z~OJ -I :II -< :t> mOm ::I: c Z ::OZ" m c OJmO :II c:JJ::O .. :t> -enm (f\. ,- s: :II oJJm , m -mz 1- "tI :t> -t z(j)(j) :II (j)-)> , G') 0 - en (j) r 0 1 \ m :t> W-I- \\ '.,. :II Z wmZ C O::o(j) ~ -I C .,~ 0 )> c ......:Ez ~ :II ':'. -I ::::r m m::::j)> ~ ::I: en ~IZ m m en -1-1-< en s: 0 -lI, e Z Z )>mo to c: ~oOJ c.. s: r- -,OJ m -< )>m-< 0 to -t ~::oz -I m ::I: -l^(j) to :II m JJ-I)> m 0 )>00 Z ::I: r-l:j G') )> - I < ::I: ~ zm::::j m -0 )>OJm )> ""Coen oj I)> :II m::o C _en 0 11)> !-I r " i ' ' r, --------.............-...-. ...-..------ , Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 8:30 A.M., Thursday, December 3,2009, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider: i i I Petition: RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olete Florida Golf Club, Inc., represented by John Passidomo of Cheffy Passidomo, and Margaret C. Perry, AICp, of Wilson- Miller Inc., is requesting a standard rezone from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Agriculture (A) zoning district. The subject property, consisting of 553.67:t acres, is located on the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, approximately 2 miles east of the Vanderbilt Beach Road fCR 862) and Collier Boule- vard fCR 951) intersection, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 min- utes on any item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes each. Persons who have been authorized to represent a group or organization should limit their presentation to ten minutes. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. Writ- ten comments must be filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review prior to De- cember 3, 2009, in order to be considered at the pub- lic hearing. All malerials used in presentation before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, if applicable. NAPLES IMMOKAlEE ROAD (C,R. _ 846) JO " ,. GOl.J)OjC;Arr(SrArrs UNIT 20 J2 a a: ~ => OOl..OENGA~ESTATE$ g UNJT HI 1 GOI..DOIGA'I[ESTAlES UNIT B . ClllDEN GATE ESTATES U~T 7 5 OOI..OEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 10 . OOI..OEN GATr ESTATES UNIT 11 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertain- ing thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes all testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County, Florida Mark P. Strain, Chairman No. 231138883 November 15 2009 Ulo:J'sMausaIQUUft ...Ut.......... ---- - ... z ~ ~ ,q )J H 1001 _50u/o ur" 10 mfor I'iP-N 1i make: fIlO . I o amV<lls dally. 25% -65% Off AU Patio/Lanai Furniture Hurry In! Sale Ends 11/22/09 ? Ov.r 100 ColI'dions on Display! The area's guaranteed best prices & over 15,000 patio sets and groups in stock. 'if 8 Tamiami Thill North (US 41) Qf'Wtggins Pa:~ in Royal Cove Plaza Naples, FL. (239) 513-2100 V\Tarehouse Showroom 12600 Westlinks Drive, Ft. Myers, FL (239) 225-4044 Hours: Mon-Sat 10-7 & Sun 11-6 s DB WWW.PatioWorld.com 'Excludes Grills, Patio Heaters and Umbrellas, In-stock only, All discounts off MFR list. Not to be combined with any other offer. Prior sales excluded, Exp, 11/22/09 NDN IrOZ AGENDA ITEM 9-( c~ er c ~unty ~ - STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2008 SUBJECT: PUDZ-2007-AR-I1398; FAKAHATCHEE PLAZA COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: OWNER: AGENT: Michael Schoeller Shoesop Properties, LLC 840 lung Blvd. West Naples, FL 34120 Tim Hancock, AICP Davidson Engineering Incorporated 2154 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34109 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of the subject property from the Estates (E) Zoning District, with a Wellfield Special Treatment (ST/W-l) overlay, to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a shopping center to be known as the Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The approximately 5.46-acre subject property occupies the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, in Section 6, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida (see location map on the following page). PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner proposes to construct a shopping center with a maximum floor area of 25,000 square feet, which would allow uses similar to those of the C-I, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. The CPUD's zoned building heights would be limited to a maximum of one-story and 35 feet, with actual height, including appurtenances, not to exceed one-story and 47 feet. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-11398 Revised 11/9/09 Page I -J I cf-~- , , , . ., " " 1 ! L \ L_J L-1 ~ 1--1- -1- - -I-=-o~^n~l r';o"~; ~; ,., ~ ' , I I " " I , 1 1 I 1 . , , , i +- <D!~-L--1:I----~ L_ . "- ~ w i' , ::J ' ~l i -~ . "l' - I , , ! ....-I--~--...j --- .--- . I o . w , . . , , - ! ,------ ,I n " ., o 0 u u , " 0- ~ ~ 'w I ! ! / / , I +- .. r--'- .. I e- z 00 w- 't< 00 ::'0 , , 1 I -~---l ) *1 . ro ", . " U " ul , 1 ------'-) , \ w ~ Z 1~6 OJ:) ~ 8 -,- T ~. ~!" .1+-_ ---:---1 /' '>. ,':/~k- I j l' , ~ -----.--- , , o -----i;r ----1 " -...j!~ 1:1 I'i ! as:", - Ow -.< l1.,,-' o Iii ~ .- '\ , , , I ,I " , " u u _ , -I i i 1 i 1 --- .- J ~~ //// / / , 1 i -- I ~r-- ., < o . w o '" , w o . . . l' ---.------->--._-- I I ]"""$ OJ. ::.'----I-- ------- (, o < w U " .- Ow \ , , . , o a u u . 0 " 0 w . 5 , d::L > -------- 6l CJS o -(J'o DDD' ' ~~\f3 u ~()Cl p i...J$.(] po j:~ ~ DD (Yo^ )I::'lt-:>o . D (Q, " i" ~~Q ~ CC"S-(;{"1_~;D ~)> '2r ;:1y;: ___J/.. -~/ . . ( . --,----- . ,." _w . _0 '-,., "z \-,,\,,0 u ," ~"I.; a. <( ~ z o - I- <( o o ....J a. <( ~ (9 Z - Z o N 00 0> '" ~ - , '" '" >- o o N , N o ::> a. '" z o f- f- W a., I ~ ~ ~ . , ~~~~~~ <>"' - ...... - N _ _ ~ "~ ~UB ~ ~ I~.~~~~~.~ ,. _ <> <;> Q 0:1 <> .. .. .E ...tl4l.... .. .. ; ~ I h I ~ ~ hm q I ~ I ~ ~~ i<~ ~~! ~ Ii ~ ! i ~ Ii I~ i : ~ . < ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~~< ~ ~ii~~ I< ~ tW '~ << I ! ! ~~~; ~~I~~ ~ ~ i ~~I~ ei~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~ i ~ ~ ~~.~ ~I~~i i"i ~i"~.~ .o~~~ ~~~ i~~~~~~~~to~~ .~ !I~!~~~m'j~i~ i~iID~ lii~~~~~~ml ,: ..; .,; ;:! - - N - ~~ ~ ~ ~ '. "; ~~~ h3 :i~. !~,q ~~ ~ g 8.," .<~ . ~h~I~~1 H. ~..~ ~~ .h~ {.iij ~~ ~;~g~ a~~~~~~~li~.~ m~~j;;~~3~' i..gih~.~~~g " !!l:i!8:~;;lIt:\jI!IlI~l:S(!I "I <Il.....:'O...IIl~..~~<ii! ~..;N ,.; -<II' '" 0; ~ tj,__~.1 /.. I,,;~H~ I I 1 ;- / 1 , /," ,/ /-:: ,/' ..51 / ,/., / /- (, -><>" , "',' ," ^,',' .-'/.' --------- T' ""2S'........,SC~"" BUFFER "___________________L_______________, , ' : ~ r-J , 3, I z.... I I Q: iL '" I : F ~ ~~~ : I ~ ~ 0' : u. ~ ;e~~~: I :::il ~~=>' I : @ ~i!lB~ : : ~ ~ ~~~~: I Z I ffil~': I , , " 1 i ~i '...J 'I' , I Cl , <( : () : cr. U) <( , UJUJUJ I :;0:::0::: : ~o...... , 0 c{...... ,: ool-UJ , :J ~ :-111 rZ " ~ ': <l2 , , ;li: I I ~ffi~ : : ,Eili I I i" I l i-1~i-l : ~~~ : : ~. , , , , , , , , , , -d . I. ,. II ~ ~\1 ~: ',' o rn " . 1- " !}r ; -I I! Zj l';: ~ < ,,< - 1 \ >- -' 2 (0<( ZLL ZW 0-' N(O Z UlUl W f-o <tw f-CL UlO W _, W > l.u o Ii ~! ,I rn '11 il II !! , -, , i. ~l " , i , , , ! .EJ~Rl'TMNEO""TIV'f \/EGETATION!lIf'FERl WATl!RlAANAGaoI!NTAAEA "~v' +> . , -r, ,,$", , ! ... , .' ..i':/~ _ ,~l!i,' r +, 'i ' I ,. . -, . I 1 r 1 * ' . 1 .. ....1+ 'I ~, 1'+-1 "'/' ,', t,~ 'Sill! 1 . 1 - I +, I , : , . , ..1..-___, I ' >- ...J 2 (0<( ZLL ZW I O...J NO Z UlUl - ~o I <tW f-(L - UlO We:: I > w - o - . i 2~~ -~ i ~i~ h ~ ..' ~~ ~ ;5.,-8 ;5<!!l ffl~~ !l~ 12 - ", ~;~ ;~ d ~~ ~~~~ ~. ~~ ~~ ~ .~~ g~ ~~ d ~~~<~ o~ t< .~ "~d. .~ .~ .~ ~ ",...g 1jI111 !'" l;!:!i! -" <011. 1'=", ",l!! Wll. I I I '. '/ , , , ':h I~ , GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD (FUTUR[CONDITlnNSSIIOWNi Cl 0:: <( >., UJ' ...J6 ~ :::;:I'" O~ cag cn~ w8 ~! (0" 0:: UJ > UJ '. . t; w..-l'i ..- . , 1< '~ . .' -, . L , ' III ~ Ii ~ ~ c "I ! I ! . CJ Zll -- ~~ c:)~ ZI2 i~i lllai:s: W!S!;/ Z!.- _ill! OC;t!. Z;;:~ Wl:~~ Ziilo~ 0\110 cn12.... z CI~Ciici ~M- _ N, > -~ ~ !II. ......00 :I; Clll ,"0 M"U Wz., , 0- <Il~ 0- ...~; "a~ ~ ~~ . ~i ~ ~ "u]~"1 !;;:rn~iiiR l!:l..l 0 -.r "'wm ol_ U.c oS-OJ ::z:c:a.<"l Sl~~~ ,,~ ,..co,,,..',, ",,,,e,,, ~~~.."~'"'."'""..".,"'''''''",..">''''',,...,'_'''P...~",,.<'I As depicted on the conceptual Master Plan on the preceding page, entitled "Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD Master Concept Plan," prepared by Davidson Engineering, Inc. and dated June I I, 2007, as revised through September 22,2009, the proposed building(s) would be situated within a 2.10-acre envelope occupying the central portion of the sitc. This envelope would be buffered from the adjoining Estates (E)-zoned properties to the north and west by a 25-loot wide landscape buffer, and would be further separated from the existing single-family homes there by an additional 50-foot wide buffer comprised of solely native vegetation and storm water management detention areas, as required pursuant to the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of the GGAMP. Since the site's original 5.46 acres would be reduced to 3.93 acres after right-of-way easements, future reservations, and compensating right-of- way have been deducted, the site's required preserve would be just 0.39-acres (3.93 acres x 10 percent), which would be provided in the northwestern corner of the native vegetation buffer. Overall, 1.18 acres (3.93 x 30 percent) would be retained as open space on the site, as required by the LDC. Access to the site would be afforded from a right-inlright-out access point on Golden Gate Boulevard and a right-in access point on Everglades Boulevard. Potential inter-parcel connections to the abutting residential uses to the north and west would also be provided, as depicted on the Master Plan, since according to the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. these properties would be eligible for Conditional Uses if the proposed CPUD is approved. AERIAL VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-I f 398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 2 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: South: West: Single-family residence ofthe E zoning district with a ST/W-I overlay Everglades Boulevard, then the undeveloped Big Bear Plaza CPUD, approved for 0.36 acres of commercial development consistent with the C-l through C-3 zoning districts; with an ST/W-I and W-2 overlay Golden Gate Boulevard, then vacant land with an E Zoning District and a ST/W-l overlay Single-family residence of the E zoning district with an ST/W-I overlay North: East: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Estates Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GGAMP. Specifically, it is within the Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center. The intent of the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict is to allow for development to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Golden Gate Estates residents while maintaining the semi-rural character of the area. Relevant to this petition, the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict permits neighborhood commercial uses and Conditional Uses of the E Zoning District, subject to the specific development standards italicized below, followed by staffs comments in bold font: Neighborhood Center Criteria: . Commercial uses shall be limited to intermediate commercial so as to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102, adopted October 30, 1991), except as prohibited below. The proposed principal uses, listed in Exhibit A to the CPUD documents, are limited to the C-l, C-2 or C-3 zoning districts. Parcels immediately adjacent to commercial zoning within the Neighborhood Centers located at the intersections of...Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard...may qualifY for Conditional Uses under the transitional conditional use provision of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of this Master Plan Element. As previously noted, the E-zoned parcels adjacent to the north and west of the proposed CPUD would be eligible for E-zoning Conditional Uses if the CPUD is approved. . A single project shall utilize no more than 50 percent of the total allowed commercial acreage. This percentage may be increased at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD. PUDZ-2007-AR-11398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 3 _ ^__.____ .~...~<__m____.__." Although this petition requests commercial zoning for the entire northwestern quadrant of the Neighborhood Center, it represents less than 50 percent of the entire Neighborhood Center. . The project shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with adjoining developments. Both of the adjacent parcels contain a single-family dwelling. Therefore, shared parking is not needed or even appropriate. . Access points shall be limited to one per l80feet commencing from the right-ofway of the major intersecting streets ol the Neighborhood Center. A maximum ol three curb cuts per quadrant shall be allowed The PUD Master Plan depicts two access points, both in compliance with this restriction. Additionally, this criterion has been addressed in Exhibit B of the CPUD document, Commercial Development Standards, Section 3, Transportation, item A. . Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with adjoining developments, whenever possible. If the CPUD is approved and an abutting parcel obtains Conditional Use approval, such shared access would be appropriate. Therefore, the PUD Master Plan depicts future interconnections to both of these properties. . Driveways accessing parcels on opposite sides of the roadway shall be in direct alignment, except when the roadway median between the two parcels has no opening. This criterion has been addressed in Exhibit B, Section 3, item A. . Projects shall provide a 25~foot wide landscape buffer abutting the external right-ofway. This buffer shall contain two staggered rows of trees that shall he spaced no more than 30 feet on center, and a douhle hedgerow at least 24 inches in height at the time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height within one year. A minimum of 50 percent of the 25-100t wide buffer area shall be comprised ol a meandering bed of shrubs and ground covers other than grass. Existing native trees must be retained within this 25~loot wide buffer area to aid in achieving this buffer requirement; other existing native vegetation shall be retained, where possible, to aid in achieving this buffer requirement Water retention/detention areas shall be allowed in this buffer area if left in natural state, and drainage conveyance through the bufler area shall be allowed if necessary to reach an external outlall. The language of this criterion has been incorporated into Exhibit B, Section 2, Buffering and Environmental, item A. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-I 1398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 4 . All buildings shall have tile roofs, 'Old Style Florida' metal roofs, or decorative parapet walls above the roofline. The buildings shall be finished in light, subdued colors, except for decorative trim. This criterion has been provided for in Exhibit B, Section 1, Architectural, item B. . Building heights shall be limited to one (1) story, with a maximum height of thirty-five (35) feet. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. This criterion has been provided for in the table in Exhibit B, Development Standards. . All lighting facilities shall be architecturally designed, and shall be limited to a height of twenty-five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded from neighboring residential land uses. This criterion has been provided for in Exhibit B, Section 1, item I. . Commercial uses shall encourage pedestrian traffic through the placement of sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and marked crosswalks within parking areas. Adjacent projects shall coordinate the placement of sidewalks so that a continuous pathway through the Neighborhood Center is created. This criterion has been provided for in Exhibit B, Section 1, item C. . All buildings and projects within any single specific quadrant of the subdistrict shall utilize a common architectural theme. This theme shall be applicable to both building design and slgnage. This criterion has been provided for in Exhibit B, Section 1, item A, . No building footprint shall exceed 5,000 square feet, unless the project is submitted in the form of a PUD. Walkways or courtyards shall connect adjacent buildings. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. This project was submitted as a CPUD and the connection provision is provided for in Exhibit B, Section 1, item D, . Drive-through establishments shall be limited to banks, with no more than three lanes; the drive-through areas shall be architecturally integrated with the rest of the building. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. Iu Exhibit B, Section 1, item E, the petitioner has added "drugstores" as another allowable drive-through use. The petitioner's justification is that the CCPC determined in 2006 that a drive-through pharmacy iu the Snowy Egret CPUD, another Neighborhood Center located east of Collier Boulevard, was consistent with the GGAMP's drive-through restrictions for bank facilities, which the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) agreed with and approved, As such, the petitioner is Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-11398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 5 , , ,-----~_.,-,_...._._--..._.- - - -- -"..,--,~",...~_.-,.,._--.._--.. seeking approval for a drive-through pharmacy for the subject CPUD, which will require the BCC to make a similar finding of consistency. However, unless such determination is made, staff has included a condition of approval limiting drive- through uses to banks only. . Fences or walls may be constructed on the commercial side of the required landscape buffer between adjacent commercial and residential uses. If constructed, such fences or walls shall not exceed jive (5) feet in height. Walls shall be constructed of brick or stone. Fences shall be of wood or concrete post or rail types, and shall be of open design (not covered by slats. boards' or wire). This criterion has been provided for in Exhibit B, Section 1, item G. . Projects directly abutting residential property (property zoned Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide. at a minimum. a seventy-jive (75) feet wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted Twenty-jive (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.95.5.6 [now Section 305.07 H] of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be usedfor water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be re-vegetated to meet subsection 3.9.5.5.6 [now Section 3.05.07.H] of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements). Additionally. in order to be considered for approval. use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: a. There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro- period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. b. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District. the project shall provide a letter or official documentfrom the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter. then the native vegetation retention area shall not be usedfor water management. c. If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area. These criteria have been provided for in Exhibit B, Section 2, item B. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD. PUDZ-2007-AR-11398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 6 . Projects within the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict that are submitted as PUDs shall provide a functional public open space component. Such public open space shall be developed as green space within a pedestrian-accessible courtyard, as per Section 2.4.5.4 [now Section 4.06.03 B.3] of the Collier County Land Development Code, as in effect at the time of PUD approval. This criterion has been provided for in Exhibit B, Section 1, item H. . The following principal permitted uses are prohibited within Neighborhood Centers: Drinking Places (5813) and Liquor Stores (5921) Mail Order Houses (5961) Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962) Power Laundries (7211) Crematories (7261) (Does not include non-crematory Funeral Parlors) Radio, TV Representatives (7313) and Direct Mail Advertising Services (7331) NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc. (7999) General Hospitals (8062), Psychiatric Hospitals (8063), and Specialty Hospitals (8069) Elementary and Secondary Schools (8211), Colleges (8221), Junior Colleges (8222) Libraries (8231) Correctional Institutions (9223) Waste Management (9511) Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens All 13 of these uses have been prohibited in Exhibit A. GGAMP Policy 5.1.1 states: Ifa streetlight or an area light is required, it shall be of the type specified to protect neighboring properties from direct glare. Area lighting shall be shielded such that direct rays do not pass property lines. Low-pressure sodium lamps are encouraged while halogen type lights are discouraged. 1. Where required, the street lamp shall be of the high pressure sodium type and have a "cobra head with flat bottom" style or be fully shielded so that light is directed only downward. Street lamps shall be mounted on a wood pole at a height and wattage recommended by the appropriate electric utility and as appropriate for a rural area. 2. Parking lot lamps shall be low-pressure sodium type lamps and shall be mounted so that they point downward without direct rays extending past the parking lot, building entrance, walkway, or other area intended to be illuminated. This criterion has been incorporated into Exhibit E, Section 5, item A. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-11398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 7 " _, _, 'v. .~, _.,..,~~~._~_","""'_",m_'_.' _._____ ,_,. .,.,_,.~.., FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses as set forth in the LDC. The compatibility analysis is described in detail in the Analysis portion of this report, beginning on the following page. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed rezone may not be deemed consistent with the GGAMP solely due to the petitioner's inclusion of a drive-through pharmacy in the CPUD. However, the CCPC should be aware that a drive-through pharmacy has been approved for another CPUD in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict, despite this subdistrict's restriction to drive- through banks only. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and the CPUD docwnent to offer a recommendation regarding Policy 5.1 of the GMP's Transportation Element. This policy (and the other applicable policies) require an analysis of rezone requests to consider their potential impacts on the transportation system; and Policy 5.1 specifically states that the COI.U1ty should not approve any rezone request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating andlor projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) within the five-year planning period unless specific mitigating conditions are approved. Golden Gate Boulevard Impacts: The first concurrency link that would be impacted by the project is Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson Boulevard to Everglades Boulevard (Link 123). The project would generate 20 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represent a significant 1.98 percent impact on the roadway. Currently this segment of Golden Gate Boulevard is failing, with a remaining capacity of -53 trips, and as reflected in the Draft 2009 AUIR, is operating at a LOS of "F". However, mitigation has been proposed by the applicant that would allow considerable network improvements. No subsequent link of Golden Gate Boulevard would be significantly impacted. Everglades Boulevard Impacts: The next concurrency link that would be impacted by the project is Everglades Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Oil Well Road (Link 135). The project would generate 20 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represents a significant 2.22 percent impact on the roadway. Currently this segment of Everglades Boulevard has a remaining capacity of 594 trips and, as reflected in the Draft 2009 AUIR, is operating at a LOS of "c." No subsequent link of Everglades Boulevard is significantly impacted. GMP Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that this petition is consistent with the FLUM and all of the applicable provisions of the Transportation Element. However, due to the applicant's inclusion of the drive-through pharmacy, which is not permitted by the Neighborhood Ccnter Subdistrict of the GGAMP. stall cannot find the CPUD consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the FLUE. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-I 1398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 8 ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 1O.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation ("PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.03.05.!, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report ("Zoning Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The BCC, in turn, use these same criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Analysis: All environmental issues have been addressed. The applicant was not required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for this project, nor was a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Council required, because the 5.46-acre site does not exceed the 10-acre threshold for tracts located landward of the coastal management boundary. As previously stated, the subject property is within Zone 1 of the East Golden Gate Wellfield Protection Area. As such, the storage or use of hazardous materials is strictly prohibited, and a commitment barring such substances from the site has been incorporated into Exhibit E, Section 2, item B. At the time of site development plan submittal, the applicant must demonstrate how adverse impacts from stormwater management to native vegetation in the preserve area would be prevented, as required by the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. Transportation Analysis: Transportation Department staff has reviewed the petition and the CPUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues. The applicant has incorporated Transportation staff's revisions within the CPUD document, and Transportation Planning staff recommends approval subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the CPUD document. Utility Review: This project does not impact the utilities provision. Per the 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update, the property is not located within the Collier County Water- Sewer District nor is it part of any other existing Utilities District. As the development is within the Golden Gate Estates Area, it is located in the City of Naples East Golden Gate Wellfield and Collier County Potential Wellfield. Therefore, the rules and regulations for the protection of wellfields would need to be followed. Emergency Management: The Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD is not located within a hurricane surge zone, nor does it propose residential development. As such, the Emergency Management Department has no objection to its approval. Zoning Review: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-11398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 9 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 GMP designates the property a Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of the GGAMP, which areas have been designed to concentrate commercial and conditional uses where traffic impacts can be accommodated. The CPUD's proposed uses would be suitable because of the GMP's contemplation of such areas for the provision of basic goods, services and amenities for residents of the Estates. In addition, the site could accommodate the traffic generated by these uses because of its location at the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, both rural major collectors. The CPUD also incorporates specific development requirements, as outlined in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict provisions, to cnsure the development's compatibility with the existing pattern of development relative to the characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic, access, drainage, sewer, and water. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, 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 andfacilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the CPUD document makes appropriate stipulations for the provision of necessary infrastructure. 3. Conformity ofthe proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Based upon the requirements of the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict and Comprehensive Planning staffs analysis, the proposed CPUD may be deemed consistent with the GMP except for its proposal to allow a drive-through pharmacy. 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. As depicted on the CPUD Master Plan included at the beginning of this report (and in Exhibit C to the CPUD document), the proposed uses would be separated from the single- family homes to the north and west by a 25-foot wide enhanced Type C buffer (as described in Exhibit B, itcm B) coupled with a minimum 50-foot wide buffer of retained native vegetation. To the east, and south, along Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, respectively, the enhanced Type C buffer would also be provided. All of these Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-11398 Revised 11/9/09 Page to proposed buffers would be consistent witb the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict provisions and would exceed the requirements of the LDC. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. According to the Master Plan, 30 percent of the site's total area remaining after the conveyance of right-of-way, representing 1.18 acres, would be retained as open space, which meets the minimum open space requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. No level of service deficiencies currently affect this site and the Developer Commitments contained in Exhibit E would provide for the adequate provision of necessary infrastructure to meet concurrency requirements at the time of site development plan (SDP) approval. Therefore, the timing of development would not be an issue if the proposed rezoning were approved. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Consistent with the intent of the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict, the site is neither designed nor intended to provide for expansion. Nevertheless, approval of this petition should not adversely impact the ability of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. 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. The project's development standards are contained in Exhibit B of the CPUD document. Although LDC Section 2.03.06.C.3 permits CPUDs to include the entire range of uses permitted in the General Commercial (C-l) through the Heavy Commercial (C-S) zoning districts, the provisions of the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict restrict these uses to only those that are allowed by the C-I through C-3 zoning districts. As such, the C-2 zoning district has been used as a benchmark to evaluate the proposed development standards against the standards of the most similar conventional zoning district. As illustrated in the following table, the proposed CPUD standards are consistent with the C-2 zoning district. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-I1398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 11 Proposed Development Standards for Principal Structures vs. C-2 Standards of LDC ....fli 10,000 sq ft. lOO feet 15,000 sq. ft. 150 feet external internal 25 feet 25 feet nla 15 feet 15 f~.5 feet 50% of zoned building heights, minimum 15 feet I 25 feet 15 feet 15 feet 50% of zoned building heights, minimum 15 feet 1 storey and 35 feet (zoned) 47 feet (actual) 35 feet LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners.. . shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable:" 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan As noted on page eight of this report, except for the inclusion of a drive-through pharmacy in the list of permitted uses, Comprehensive Planning staff has found the CPUD to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the other applicable provisions of the GMP. Furthermore, the property is designated as a Neighborhood Center Subdistrict, whose specific development requirements outlined in the GGAMP have been appropriately referenced in the PUD document to assure their compliance. 2. The existing land use pattern; The subject property is located at the crossroads of Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, an intersection in which all four quadrants are classified as a Neighborhood Center Subdistrict by the GGAMP. Except for thc property in the northeastern corner of the intersection, which is zoned Big Bear Plaza CPUD and approved for commercial uses consistent with the C-l through C-3 zoning districts, the properties surrounding the subject site are zoned E and are either developed with single- family homes or undeveloped lots. In light of this land use pattern, the proposed CPUD would be appropriate for this location. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-11398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 12 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; Approval of this CPUD would not create an isolated district as the proposed CPUD fulfills the intent of the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of the GMP, which is to locate commercial uses that can provide basic goods, services and amenities to Golden Gate Estates residents while stilI maintaining the semi-rural character of the area. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The aerial photograph on page two of this report highlights the boundary of the subject property and demonstrates that it is logically drawn consistent with the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezomng necessary. As contemplated by the GGAMP of the GMP, an increased population in the Estates- designated area of the County, which is typically far from the Urban-designated area, has created a need for basic commercial goods and services closer to Estates residents. The proposed CPUD would meet the needs of this population by rezoning E-designated property to CPUD in order to permit basic commercial uses ranging from C-l to C-3 in intensity. Furthermore, the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict encourages rezones the form of a PUD. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; The proposed CPUD would not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood. Incorporated into the proposed CPUD document are the applicable provisions of the Neighborhood Center Snbdistrict of the GMP, which were designed to assure that the commercial development anticipated for the subject site would respect the location's semi-rural nature. For example, an effective 75-foot buffer would be required to separate the proposed uses from adjoining residential ones; a rural, "Old-Florida" architectural style would be required, including complementary signage and street lights; allowable uses would be limited to intermediate commercial and potentially noxious uses would be prohibited; and access points would be restricted. Additionally, staff has recommended a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation on the site from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., as was approved for the Big Bear CPUD across Everglades Boulevard, to prevent potential incompatibilities with adjoin residential uses. The development of the project would also have to bc in compliancc with applicablc concnrrcncy management rcgulations at thc timc developmcnt approvals wcrc sought. Thercforc, the proposed uscs would not only be compatiblc with the surrounding neighborhood, but would enhancc living conditions by providing much nceded commcrcial services and amcnities. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-f f 398 Revised II /9/09 Page 13 ..-.----------.... 7. Whether the proposed change will 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. As previously noted, the proposed CPUD was reviewed by Transportation Planning staff, who has ensured that the language incorporated into Exhibit E of the CPUD document is appropriate mitigation for potential traffic impacts. In conformance with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP, no significant level of service impacts would result from this project. Rather, the provision of goods and services in the Estates-designated area will reduce the average trip length for these residents. For these reasons, the proposed CPUD would not excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise create adverse traffic impacts. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change would not create surface water problems since the CPUD document incorporates appropriate language to insure suitable drainage on the site, such as the provision of 0.61 acres for stormwater management and the utilization of the 75-foot-wide buffer area for stormwater detention. The project would also be reviewed and approved by the County's Stormwater Engineering staff and the South Florida Water Management District at the time of site development plan review. Therefore, no drainage problems would result from the proposed development. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; The proposed CPUD would not impact light and air on adjacent properties since ample setbacks have been provided for the building envelope from the property's boundaries as a result of the intense buffering requirements of the subdistrict. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon a variety of circumstances that are external to the subject property (since property valuation is affected by a host of factors other than zoning). However, given the proposed development standards, no diminution of property values would be anticipated. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed development fulfills the planning objectives of the GGAMP, so it is improbable that it would be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent property in accordance with the existing regulations. It should also be noted that development of the Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-I J 398 Revised 11/9/09 Page /4 subject property would make the two adjacent residential properties eligible for Conditional Uses pursuant to the transitional Conditional Use provisions of the GMP. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; As previously stated, the proposed CPUD complies with the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of the GGAMP and, with the developer's commitments contained in Exhibit E, would also be consistent with the applicable regulations of the LDC. Furthermore, land use applications are subject to a public hearing process to insure that they do not constitute a grant of special privilege and that they are compatible with other properties in the vicinity. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; E-zoning is no longer the most appropriate for this location. Because the property is at the intersection of two major rural collectors, it is more suitable for the intermediate commercial uses needed by the area's burgeoning population. Moreover, the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of the GGAMP designates this area for the proposed uses. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As previously stated, the commercial uses of proposed CPUD are needed by the community, as reflected in the area's designation as a Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. As acknowledged in criterion six above, the specific language of this subdistrict has been incorporated in the CPUD document to ensure the project's compatibility with its surroundings. Furthermore, zoned building height would be limited to one-story, with a maximum height of 35 feet, which conforms to the neighborhood. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are potentially other sites already zoned to accommodate the proposed development; however this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The proposed CPUD was reviewed and deemed compliant with the GMP and the provisions of the LDC, subject to approval of the requested deviations. 16. 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. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-l J 398 Revised 11/9/09 Page /5 ,....,..-....,..,, - <. .,---_._-~--- Any development on the site would require some site alteration. However, with the proposed development, one acre (18 percent of the site) would remain vegetated or replanted with native flora. 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 Ordinance, as amended. As noted, the proposed CPUD petition has been reviewed by the Transportation Planning Department and the Utilities Department, both of which have recommended approval of the project, finding that it would not have an adverse impact on the levels of service for public facilities. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant duly noticed and held the required meeting on November 14, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at the Golden Gate Estates Branch Library. Thirteen people from the community attended, as well as Fred Hood, AICP, and Tim Hancock, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, and County staff. Mr. Hood explained the objective of the CPUD rezone by stating the following: · 25,000 square-feet of commercial was proposed; · Uses consistent with the C-I through C-3 zoning districts were being sought; · A minimum 25-foot landscape buffer would be provided around the site; · A 75-foot wide buffer with a meandering berm would be provided adjacent to residential uses; . Maximum building height would be 35 feet; · Only two points of access would be provided. Golden Gate Boulevard would be right- in/right-out and Everglades Boulevard would be right-in only; . Right-of-way would be set aside for road widening; and . The CPUD would provide needed retail and/or otlice space. Mr. Tim Nance of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association said that the applicants could garner the support of the Civic Association if lighting were carefully examined and designed so as not to impact adjacent residential uses. Another audience member expressed concern about a "domino effect" if the property were rezoned. Mr. Hancock explained that the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict provided for the proposed uses and that adjacent residential land could not just be converted to commercial. Another person wanted to know what commercial uses would be opening on the site. Mr. Hancock replied that no business had signed a letter of intent at this time but added that they would like to see a small restaurant, dry cleaners and other uses of that nature. Mr. Hancock assured attendees that there would be no fast-food restaurant, and that the only drive- through uses would be a bank and a pharmacy. He also said that no gas station would be permitted Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-J 1398 Revised 11/9/09 Page /6 because of the site's well field location. Finally, he committed to a building height of one-story and 35 feet zoned, with an actual height of 47 feet. No opposition to the rezone was expressed and the meeting concluded at 7:00 p.m. Because of the long length of time between the original NIM and the project's CCPC hearing date, the applicant held a second NIM on September 24,2009 at 5:30 p.m. at Golden Gate Fire Station No.7!. Only two people from the community attended (who had also attended the first NIM), as well as Mr. Hancock and County staff. Mr. Hancock re-described the project and both of the citizens expressed their support, saying that commercial uses were needed. They also wanted to know the feasibility of the adjoining properties becoming commercial; and if there would be fast-food restaurants. Mr. Hancock explained that the GMP would not allow the expansion of commercial to those properties or drive-through, fast-food restaurants. The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed and approved this staff report on November ]6,2009. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-11398 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the stipulations below, which have been incorporated into Exhibit F of the CPUD document: I. Irrespective of that stated in Exhibit B.I, Architectural, item E, no drive-through pharmacies shall be permitted (unless recommended for approval by the CCPC as for the Snowy Egret CPUD). 2. The hours of operation on the site for all non-essential services shall be limited to 6 a.m. to II p.m. Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-l 1 398 Revised 11/9/09 Page /7 '. _".,.,_,_w.__.,. _^,"_.......,,_....,~ ,_.,Hn ...._._._..~_. , . PREPARED BY: .... / 10 -DAVID S, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: 11-'7'~'f RA YMO D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 'ih. I SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 9 DATE APPROVED BY: ~~ 1 '.lsEPH K. SCHMITT ADMINISTRATOR oMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL RVICES DIVISION //)7ti I f DATE Tentatively scheduled for the January] 2,20 I 0 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-11398 Revised 11/9/09 Page 18 ORDINANCE NO. 09- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASS]FICA TION OF THE HERE]N DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE FAKAHATCHEE PLAZA CPUD. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD (CR 876) AND EVERGLADES BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONS]STING OF 5.46+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Tim Hancock, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Shoesop Properties, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 6, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from an Estates (E) Zoning District to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District to be known as the Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Page] of2 .___...____,__'"_mN ,._",~.". "_'".~_"'~_'_' , . Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Deve]opment Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTlON TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ,2009. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County A TrEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: DONNA FIALA, Chairman , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Steven T. Williams A. C A ~-rw sSlstant ounty ttorney". 21 'O'l Exhibit A - Permitted Uses Exhibit B - Commercial Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Concept Plan Exhibit D - Lega] Description Exhibit E - Developer Commitments Exhibit F - Conditions of Approval CP\07 -CPS-00634\49 Rev. 11/23/09 Page 2 of2 . , EXHIBIT A PERMITTED USES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: PRINCIPAL USES: 1. Accident and Health Insurance (Group 6321). 2. Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services (Group 8721). 3. Adjustment and Collection Services (Group 7322). 4. Administration of Educational Programs (Group 941 I). 5. Administration of General Economic Programs (Group 96] I). 6. Administration of Housing Programs (Group 9531). Fakah,]tchee PlaZd CPUD Revised: November 4-, 2009 I 7. Administration of Public Health Programs (Group 943]). 8. Administration of Social, Human Resource and Income Maintenance Programs (Group 944]). 9. Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural Development (Group 9532). ] O. Administration of Veterans' Affairs, Except Health and Insurance (Group 9451). II. Advertising Agencies (Group 7311). 12. Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management (Group 9511). 13. Architectural Services (Group 8712). 14. Auto and home supply stores (Group 5531). 15. Automotive services (Group 7549), except any wrecker (towing) service. 16. Barber shops (Group 7241), except barber schools. ] 7. Beauty shops (Group 7231), except beauty schools. J 8. Book Stores (Group 5942). _._...~-~-- . . < 19. Business Associations (Group 8611). 20. Business Consulting Services (Group 8748). 21. Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (Group 7389), except auctioneering services, automobile recovery services, automobile repossession services, batik work (hand-printing on textiles), bottle exchanges, bronzing, cloth cuttinglbolting or winding, contractors' disbursement control, assembling and packaging of cosmetic kits, cotton inspection service, cotton sampler service, telephone directories' distribution, drive-away automobile service, exhibit building, tilling (aerosol) pressure containers, field warehousing, fire extinguisher service, float decoration, folding and refolding service, gas system conversion, bottle or can labeling, merchandise liquidation services, metal slitting and shearing, packaging and labeling, patrol of electric transmission or gas lines, pipeline and power<line inspection service, press clipping service, recording studios, repossession service, rug binding, salvaging of damaged merchandise, scrap stecl cutting and slitting, shrinking textiles, solvent recovery service, sponging textiles, swimming pool cleaning and maintenance, tape slitting, textile designers, textile folding, tobacco sheeting service, window trimming service, and yacht brokers. 22. Camera and Photographic Supply Stores (Group 5946). 23. Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores (Group 5441). 24. Child day care services (Group 8351). 25. Children's and Infants' Wear Stores (Group 5641). 26. Civic, Social, and Fraterna] Associations (Group 8641). 27. Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry-cleaning (Group 7215). 28. Commercial Art and Graphic Design (Group 7336). 29. Commercial Photography (Group 7335) 30. Commodity Contracts Brokers and Dealers (Group 622]). Fakahatclwt Plm:a CPUD }{evlsed: November 4,200') 2 31. Computer and Computer Softwarc Stores (Group 5734) 32. Computer Facilities Management Systems (Group 7376). 33. Computer Integrated Systems Design (Group 7373). . , 34. Computer Maintenance and Repair (Group 7378). 35. Computer Processing and Data Preparation and Processing Services (Group 7374). 36. Computer Programming Services (Group 7371). 37. Computer Related Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (Group 7379). 38. Computer Rental and Leasing (Group 7377). 39. Credit Reporting Services (Group 7323). 40. Dairy Products Stores (Group 5451). 4] . Direct Mail Advertising Services (Group 7331). 42. Direct Selling Establishments (Group 5963). 43. Drapery, Curtain, And Upholstery Stores (Group 5714). 44. Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores (Group 59] 2). 45. Dry-cleaning Plants, Except Rug Cleaning (Group 7216), non-industrial dry cleaning only. 46. Eating places (Group 5812 only) with 6,000 square feet or less in gross floor area in the principal structure (All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption are subject to locationa] requirements of the Land Development Code). 47. Electrical and Electronic Repair Shops (Group 7629). 48. Employment Agencies (Group 736]). 49. Engineering Services (Group 8711). 50. Executive and Legislative Offices Combined (Group 9]3]). 51. Executive Offices (Group 9]] I). 52_ Family Clothing Stores (Group 565]). 53. Federal and Federally-Sponsored Credit Agencies (Group 611 I). 54. Fire, Marine, and Casualty Insurance (Group 6331). 3 Fakahalchee Pbztl CPUD Hevi-sed: N01.'emuer 4, 2009 , -----~ -----,--...-.'.-- .- . 55. Floor Covering Stores (Group 5713). 56. Florists (Group 5992), not to exceed 5,000 square feet. 57. Fruit and Vegetable Markets (Group 543 I). 58. Furniture Stores (Group 5712). 59. Garment Pressing, and Agents for Laundries and Drycleaners (Group 7212). 60. General Government (Group 9199). 61. General merchandise stores (Group 5399). 62. Gift, Novelty, and Souvenir Shops (Group 5947). 63. Grocery Stores (Group 541 I), Convenience Markets will only be permitted to operate at a maximum of 16 hours per day subject to LUC 852 of the ITE, Seventh Edition, Volume 3 of3. 64. Hardware stores (Group 5251). 65. Help Supply Services (Group 7363). 66. Hobby, Toy, and Game Shops (Group 5945). 67. Home Health Care Services (Group 8082). 68. Hospital and Medical Service Plans (Group 6324). 69. Household Appliance Stores (Group 5722). 70. Individual and Family Social Services (Group 8322), elderly or handicapped activity centers, adult day care centers, and adult and handicapped day care centers only. 71. Information Retrieval Services (Group 7375). 72. Insurance Agents, Brokers, and Service (Group 641 I). 73. Insurance Carriers (Group 6399). 74. Investment Advice (Group 6282). F,lkahatchee Plaza CPUD Revised: November 4, 2009 75. Jewelry Stores (Group 5944). 4 . . 76. Labor Unions and Similar Labor Organizations (Group 8631). 77. Land, Mineral, Wild]ife, and Forest Conservation (Group 9512). 78. Landscape Counseling and Planning (Group 0781). 79. Legal services (Group 8111). 80. Legislative Bodies (Group 912]). 81. Life Insurance (Group 6311). 82. Loan Brokers (Group 6] 63). 83. Luggage and Leather Goods Stores (Group 5948). 84. Management Consulting Services (Group 8742). 85. Management Services (Group 8741). 86. Meat and Fish (Seafood) Markets, Including Freezer Provisioners (Group 5421). 87. Membership Organizations (Group 8699). 88. Men's and Boys' Clothing and Accessory Stores (Group 5611). 89. Miscellaneous Apparel and Accessory Stores (Group 5699). 90. Miscellaneous business Credit Institutions (Group 6159). 91. Miscellaneous Food Stores (Group 5499). 92. Miscellaneous Home Furnishings Stores (Group 57] 9). 93. Miscellaneous Personal Services (Group 7299), babysitting bureaus, clothing rental, costume rental, dating service, depilatory salons, diet workshops, dress suit rental, electrolysis, genealogical investigation service, and hair removal only. 94. Miscellaneous Retail Stores (Group 5999), not to exceed 5,000 square feet 95. Mortgage Bankers and Loan Correspondents (Group 6162). I'akahdtchec Pleva (PUD Revised: November 4} 2009 96. Museums and art galleries (Group 8412). 5 .-.-"'--,,-...... . 97. Musical Instrument Stores (Group 5736). 98. News Dealers and Newsstands (Group 5994), not to exceed 5,000 square feet. 99. Offices and Clinics and Doctors of Osteopathy (Group 8031). 100. Offices and Clinics of Chiropractors (Group 8041). 101. Offices and Clinics of Dentists (Group 8021). 102. Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Medicine (Group 8011). 103. Offices and Clinics of Health and Practitioners, Not Elsewhere Classified (Group 8049). 104. Offices and Clinics of Optometrists (Group 8042). 105. Offices and Clinics of Podiatrists (Group 8043). 106. Optical Goods Stores (Group 5995), not to exceed 5,000 square feet. 107. Paint, glass and wallpaper stores (Group 5231). 108. Pension, Health, and Welfare Funds (Group 6371). 109. Personal Credit Institutions (Group 6141). 110. Photocopying and Duplicating Services (Group 7334). Ill. Photofinishing Laboratories (Group 7384). 112. Photographic studios (Group 7221). 113. Physical fitness facilities (Group 7991). 114. Political Organizations (Group 8651). 115. Prepackaged Software (Group 7372). 116. Professional Membership Organizations (Group 8621). 1 ]7. Public Finance, Taxation, and Monetary Policy (Group 9311). 118. Public Order and Safety, Not Elsewhere Classified (Group 9229). 6 FDk,1h;:ltchee Pleva CPUD R:.:.;yis(;d: NO\!t'rnLWf 't, 2009 . . 119. Public Relations Services (Group 8743). 120. Radio, Television and Consumer Electronics Stores (Group 5731). ] 21. Real Estate Agents and Managers (Group 653]). 122. Record and Prerecorded Tape Stores (Group 5735). 123. Regulation and Administration of Communications, E]ectric, Gas, and Other Utilities (Group 963]). ]24_ Regu]ation and Administration of Transportation Programs (Group 962]). ]25. Regu]ation of Agricu]tural Marketing and Commodities (Group 9641). 126. Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors (Group 965]). 127. Re]igious Organizations (Group 8661). 128. Retail Bakeries (Group 5461). 129. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (Group 5261). 130. Secretarial and Court Reporting Services (Group 7338). 131. Security and Commodity Exchanges (Group 6231). 132. Security Brokers, Dea]ers, and F]otation Companies (Group 6211). 133. Services Allied With the Exchange of Securities or Commodities (Group 6289). 134. Sewing, Needlework, and Piece Goods Stores (Group 5949). ] 35. Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors (Group 725]). 136. Shoe Stores (Group 5661). 137. Short-Term Business Credit Institutions, Except Agricultural (Group 6153). 138. Space and Research and Technology (Group 9661). 139. Sporting Goods Stores and Bicycle Shops (Group 5941). Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD r~evised: November 4,2009 7 ,.,."u.___.____.,_.~ ... . . ]40. Stationery Stores (Group 5943). 141. Surety Insurance (Group 6351). 142. Surveying Services (Group 8713). 143. Tax Return Preparation Services (Group 729]). 144. Title Abstract Offices (Group 6541), 145. Title Insurance (Group 6361). ]46. Tobacco Stores and Stands (Group 5993), not to exceed 5,000 square feet. 147. Transportation services (Group 4724), travel agencies only. 148, United States Postal Service (Group 43]] except major distribution centers) . 149. Used Merchandise Stores (Group 5932). 150. Veterinary services (Groups 0742, 0752 excluding outside kenneling). 151. Videotape rental (Group 784]), limited to 1,800 square feet of gross floor area. 152. Watch, Clock, and Jewelry Repair (Group 7631). 153. Women's Accessory and Specialty Stores (Group 5632). 154. Women's Clothing Stores (Group 5621). 155. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC. CONDITIONAL USES: The following uses are permissible as conditional uses, subject to the standards and procedures established in the LDC: ] . Ancillary plants. 2. Churches and places of worship. 8 Fakall8.tchce Plaza CPU U Revised: November 4, 2009 . . PROHIBITED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for the following: 1. Correctional institutions (Group 9223). 2. Crematories (Group 7261) (Does not include non- crematory Funeral Parlors). 3. Drinking places (5813) and Liquor stores (Group 5921). 4. Elementary and secondary schools (Group 8211), colleges (Group 8221), junior colleges (Group 8222). 5. General hospitals (Group 8062), psychiatric hospitals (Group 8063), and specialty hospitals (Group 8069). 6. Homeless shelters and soup kitchens (Group 8361). 7. Libraries (Group 8231). 8. Mail order houses (Group 596]). 9. Merchandising machine operators (Group 5962). 10. NEe Recreational Shooting Ranges, waterslides, etc. (Group 7999) ] 1. Power laundries (Group 7211). ]2. Radio, TV representatives (Group 7313) and direct mail advertising services (Group 7331). 13. Waste management (Group 95] I). 9 Pak31wtchee Plan, CPUD Revis('d: November 4, 2009 ---~-'... '~-'--"-'---_..-~---- --. . EXHIBIT B COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES MINIMUM LOT AREA I 10,000 square feet I , MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 feet MINIMUM YARDS EXTERNAL / INTERNAL Front 25 feet / 25 feet Rear N/A/ 15 feet -_._-"--_. ---- Side 15 feet / 7.5 feet MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN -'-'-r-The greater of 15 feet or 1, the STRUCTURES sum of zoned building hei ht ---.---. MAXIMUM HEIGHT zoned: 1 story and 35 feet actual: I story and 47 feet MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 square feet I . .--- MAXIMUM BUILDING AREA 25,000 square-foot Gross Floor Area (GFA)foot rint r principal structure, 011 thefinishedfirst-floor. GENERAL: Except as providedfor herein, all criteria set forth above shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot houndary lines, or between structures. 1. ARCHITECTURAL A. All buildings and projects within the PUD shall utilize a common architectural theme. This theme shall be applicable to both building design and signage. B. All buildings shall have tile roofs or "Old Style Florida" metal roofs. The buildings shall have an "Old Florida" architectural style and be finished in light, subdued colors, except for decorative trim. C. Pedestrian traffic shall be encouraged through the placement of sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and marked crosswalks within parking areas. Adjacent projects shall coordinate placement of sidewalks so that a continuous pathway through the Neighborhood Center is created. 10 Fakatl11tchec Plaza CPUD Revised: Novl'rnbcr 4, 200() . D. Adjacent buildings within the Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD shall be connected with walkways or courtyards. E. Drive-through establishments shall be limited to banks and drugstores, with no more than 3 lanes; the drive-through areas shall be architecturally integrated with the rest of the building. No drive-throughs will be located between the facade of the building and Golden Gate Blvd or Everglades Blvd. F. The developer shall meet with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association to discuss the architectural components of the proposed development prior to the submittal of a Site Development Plan application for the subject property. G. Fences or walls may be constructed on the commercial side of the required landscape buffer between adjacent commercial and residential uses. If constructed, such fences or walls shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. Walls shall be constructed of brick or stone. Fences shall be of wood or concrete post or rail types, and shall be of open design (not covered by slats, boards or wire). H. A functional public open-space component shall be provided. Such public open spaces shall be developed as green space within a pedestrian-accessible courtyard, as per Section 5.05.08 C.9.d.i. of the Collier County Land Development Code, as in effect at the time of PUD approval. 1. All lighting facilities shal] be architecturally-designed, and shall be limited to a height of twenty-five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded from neighboring residential land uses. 2. BUFFERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL A. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided abutting the external right-of- way. This buffer shall contain two staggered rows of trees that shall be spaced no more than 30 feet On center, and a double row hedge at least 24 inches in height at the time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height within one year. A minimum of 50% of the 25-foot wide buffer area shal] be comprised of a meandering bed of shrubs and ground covers other than grass. Existing native tress must be retained within this 25-foot wide buffer area to aid in achieving this buffer requirement; other existing native vegetation shall be retained, where possible, to aid in achieving this buffer requirement. Water retention/detention areas shall be allowed in this buffer area if left in natural state, and drainage conveyance through the butTer area shall be allowed in necessary to reach an external outfall. B. Projects directly abutting residential property (property zoned E-Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum, a seventy-five (75) feet wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted. Twenty-five (25) feet of the width of the butTer along the developed area shall be a landscape 11 Fakahau.:hee Plaza (PUD Revised: Novl'mber 1,2009 --~-~-_._~--_. -- ~ ._..,----,..~.,,_. ,_. "_.'H~'~_,._'=C""',~'____"-"""~,,,,,-",,~~,,,__,__~,"__~ -- .. . buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07 H. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be re-vegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07 H. of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements). Additionally, in order to be considered for approval, use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: a. There shall be no adverse impacts to thc native vcgetation being retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro-period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. b. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District, the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management. c. ]fthe project is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall provide evidence that no removal of nati ve vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area. 3. TRANSPORT A nON A. Driveways shall align with driveway access on opposing parcels, except when the roadway median between the two parcels has no opening, or does not provide for a through movement. 12 Fakail,lt.chee Plaza CPUD Revised: November 4, 20()<) "'......-....- ~' -""-"[ / ...""'--""...._, L c"" ~~t;I~;:~:7~, <>1', ,,_<,7':'<~ ; , ... Ii' -n : ' r:<v<;,':-"".:' ,.<: ::;'<,,"":'>?:":<:';~ \ ~I ":::'~~:~"I'I::'" <"" ,:', , ,c'.:>,; -I I 1 ~ : ,',,' ,.'..'.., .,", ",", .:' ,', ,.- ',-" ' ~, : , '/"_':._ ~ 11...1.....-..--'<-. - -~'- - A 'f _L .._.1 ..... .._ __un" :j;:./' ~ )-1 <'........."""'~ I:: ,,'~>;<'.:I ,-- .- ----~-~-- ,^ -,,:1 ... , ", ___.-.1 ::5 j., "/' ", :,' &.:..'] . .:~i: ,'>. F! ;Ii ,+,:,..-!r-'l ~[ i ". "'" ~I ! ~. -j ~: ~ ,. ,..., " I .. ";. -I ~:.! ~'" , t.c~"1 ~ m . . EXHmlT C MASTER PLAN ""'_r' , , , 1:""'" ~ l " .. "' ~ ;j;:; . , , , , " '5.4 Z'-<-'- /\..J ,",-, ~ '" t',.... 'z VI {Ii ~," 1--'-, ~,- ~ ~..:. r\." ,1'0 ,-,-'...J " .> , , ' , "Ii i l'~ i :~ 1 Ii o. Q" ,:j .~ ~ , 'i.'J t- :'1~: r '1;1 .. !!' ~ l-,il' A. L' 1O ~il~ r ! , i >- . '; 1111111 i I' '!f ~ ~ ~ 81'lt : t 'I N ~ ~ <> ..I.. .. .. : - - ~ .l! ~i. ~ ~ ..,.01/ "" , oJ:! : ! !l! i '; :~ , 1:! 1,1 I ,I Ii I ~: i " >Oi,"., . . . . , " ~. I . ~i : 1~ pie r ! i!lll!,I'i"l! ,In i'l" I/,I!11 Ui.."" ,,, " ~, i.., .. 'I l i I 1 ~ II ! Ill!!, I'! 1I llii , i . Il~i II" I I I j,ll Ill'! , > I Ill! ".Ii i,l 111.l ill ! 'I! I ,1"1'\1' e~ l'lS; !r_d ',i 1111!~"li'll i!I!!II!!!!I!II!! h, ~H~ ; !!:~BIt , cOI" 1Il ~.: il'l 8 ~! : . : Ii :.1 i ,I /1 " \r- - " . , , , ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,II! I.i 'II Il,!ii lil hi il !j'" !11311., ',I_ ;jlMlll1m I,!gl'~l.!ii" I"~" 'I II II ~m '.1 H.. lii~" ,,~..... ~ ~ 0< -~ ~ 7:i..J 0-' I No z I./lrn ~ 1-0 I -'fG.-J ~'" Ul-, w'::; ,; I '" o , _ill iP ;}, u ffi[(l~ ::;"'.. :>uo: 00: uotli :J"":z :<N ttl '" < . I - , ;!l I! I 5i~ ~; I ~~8 t ill !! III" i!'-g lH; Ii' ~~ Ill! I' ':1 ".11 ,j ,I 10 ii:~1 Ii II II /I-<,",~ (..~''''" ~--I . : I ,", ' -1- , te ' rl!i-I I ~h : -E'f : , , I I , , GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD \n'n;F~,,,,,[""">Il.",'''''' -~._-_._+ 13 Fabllatclw" Plaia CPlID R(~visl~d: Novvt'nber 4, 2.009 -~-~,-,-,,,,,,,,,,,... , . / I I 'I I, Ii II '! ,. - .- , I, , I l , , " ~ 0>- ~H :1 ::>' " 0": I a:l~ , "', w,~ '" S' (!)'-. '" W 0> W \\1 " \'\' ,: I . ~ 'd j , , \1 1\ ,\ I II \ \' II \ 1\\ \1 '1' II :i II I 'I I " :.1' 5....~ - . . U z~ -- . - \:I' z" ii:~1 W. W~ Z'_ _i. C):;c. Z~~ W-"I Z"II O~ . CIlii i '~' Clt;.. , ;:a es , cC~~" 'z_ Q.~' :m"l- .....~ I~z WZV ('<' 0' "-Id . .q; VL 0.,_ aQ;; :::l~~. >, 0.. __.. (J ....,. , 0", iT~~~~f-! ;':', .", :1"1 'I" 1"1' '! ' : ;;;~, ,;,'~ !I;!i~ i'~il~ ''''".f<d iill~ '~-""' , r;r~1 ~~;!Ii ,.:! \ \ . . ill"_ ~l:;~ g~llt~ a~~jlg: o-,:ll:!- ic . . EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTION: 6, TOWNSHIP: 49 SOUTH. RANGE: 28 EAST TRACT 128, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 76 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGES 13 AND 14 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA THE ABOVE DESCRIBES AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 238,800 SQUARE FEET OR 5.46 ACRES OF LAND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. 14 Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD Revised: November 4, 20()C) . EXlllBIT E DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the proj ect. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL i. The minimum native preservation requirement shall be 0.39 acres (3_93 acres x 10% ~ 0.39 acres to be preserved). ii. The subject property is located within the SToW] wellfield zone. The storage and use of hazardous materials shall be strictly prohibited. 3. TRANSPORTATION A. The property owner within 30 days of the approval of this rezone shall convey to Collier County lands described in Exhibit C attached hereto. The property owner shall be entitled to receive cash compensation or Transportation impact fee credits from Collier County not to exceed $30,000, The form of compensation shall be at the discretion of Collier County. Cash compensation or written confirmation of impact fee credit shall be issued by the County within 180 days of the acceptance of lands described in Exhibit C. Said conveyance and acceptance by Collier County of the described lands incorporates the following supporting points: i.) This conveyance positively addressed the potential for incongruity as stated in the Future Land Use Element under D. Special Issues which references the importance of reserving adequate right-of-way at the time of zoning. This conveyance ensures available right-of-way for planned capacity improvements at the intersection of Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard to accommodate a four-lane Everglades Boulevard and six-lane Golden Gate Boulevard. (Any future right of way taking(s) at this location shall be recognized as a separate action and shall not be subject to the limitations of this document.) ii.) The value of the lands conveyed is recognized to be in excess of the compensation by cash or impact fee credit. Such value is required to provide adequate mitigation for future transportation impacts resulting from the project, limited to the land uses and intensity provided for in this rezone and the accompanying TIS dated September 2009. This mitigation satisfies consistency requirements of Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan for the density/intensity proposed by this zoning change. IS Fakahatchee Plaza CHID Rcviscd~ November 4,2009 -'<~_. ___""._'n_.~_,"~"_____ --".,.,,,--_."_.- iii.) All compensating right of way required in accordance with Section 6.06.0I.H.3 of the Land Development Code (as amended) is included in the lands described in Exhibit C. No additional compensating right of way will be required at the time of Development Order application. The acreage of this compensating right of way shall not be creditable towards impact fee credits, and shall not be compensated by the County. iv.) Developer shall convey the parcel described in Exhibit C (the "Parcel") to County in tee simple, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Developer will provide the Office of the County Attorney with the executed statutory warranty deed, suitable for recording, within ninety (90) days of the County's request for conveyance. Upon receipt, the County shall record the statutory warranty deed in the Public Records of the County. All costs of recording and conveyance shall be paid by Developer. County will be responsible for paying the costs of any title work and searches, and Developer shall be responsible for all costs for promptly removing or curing any liens, encumbrances or deficiencies revealed in any title work. If required by the County Attorney, Developer will promptly provide either an attorney's opinion, or a corporate affidavit, identifYing the record owner of this parcel, setting forth the authority of the record owner to enter into this Agreement, and identifYing any lien holders having a lien or encumbrance on this parcel. The opinion or affidavit will specifically describe each of the recorded instruments under which the record owner holds title, each lien or encumbrance, and cite appropriate recording information and incorporate by reference a copy of all such referenced instruments. B. The total combination of allowable land uses on this site shall not be allowed to exceed the maximum trip generation for the proposed uses stated in the September 2009 Traffic Impact Study (134 PM Peak Hour, two-way trips). Staff reserves the ability to limit square footage or the number of units during any subsequent development order based on the trip generation limit. Any future occupant change that increases trip generation per ITE trip generation guidelines will require Transportation review and may not be allowed, if the total proposed trips exceed the maximum impact listed in this condition. 4. UTILITIES The project shall utilize well and septic systems until central water and sewer are available. 5. LIGHTING 16 Fakailatchee Plaza CPU 0 Revised: November /1, 2009 , A. If a streetlight or an area light is required, it shall be of the type specified to protect neighboring properties from direct glare. Area lighting shall be shielded such that direct rays do not pass property lines. Low-pressure sodium lamps are encouraged while halogen type lights are discouraged. i.) Where required, the street lamp shall be of the high pressure sodium type and be a "cobra head with flat bottom" style or be fully shielded so that light is directed only downward. Street lamps shall be mounted on a wood pole at a height and wattage recommended by the appropriate electric utility and as appropriate for a rural area. ii.) Parking lot lamps shall be low-pressure sodium type lamps and shall be mounted so that they point downward without direct rays extending past the parking lot, building entrance, walkway, or other area intended to be illuminated. 17 F"kob"tchee Plaza CPlIO Revised: Nnvl'mbcr 4, 20{)CJ ..~~.._.... ____.M..___ .____M_..'''..__._.~.._.._.__,___,__="',.~"'..........".,_q_,'_._ 7"'."',"__~'_', __'..........~_.,"._,._~,~." .,,""""''''''- ..-, <_'_"",."., ...... .._ 7 / , , , , . , EXHIBIT F CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL November 19, 2009 1. Irrespective of that stated in Exhibit B.1, Architectural, item E, no drive-through pharmacies shall be permitted (unless recommended for approval by the CCPC as for the Snowy Egret CPUD). 2. The hours of operation on the site for all non-essential services shall be limited to 6 a.m. to ] 1 p.m.