CCPC Backup 05/07/2009 R
CCPC
REGULAR
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
MAY 7,2009
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Memorandum
Board of County Commissioners
Joseph K. Schmitt, Community Development & JII:{1!o1
Environmental Services Administrator if!)
April 29, 2009
Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Enclosed is a copy of the full agenda package for the Collier County Planning Commission
meeting scheduled for May 7,2009. To my knowledge, there are two Land Use Petition items
that may have controversial issues this week.
Item # 9-B
Item # 9-D
Petition: CU-08-AR-13245. Resource Recoverv Park-During the Neighborhood
Information Meeting (NIM), several of the attendees voiced their concerns
about increased noise and odor resulting from this type of facility adversely
impacting their neighborhood. They also expressed concerns about the
possibility of increased flooding and loss of wildlife habitat. These individuals
may appear at the CCPC and BCC hearings to personally voice their concerns.
Petition: PUDZ-04-AR-6829. Davis Reserve-This is a mixed-use project that
includes an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement that will set aside 20
percent (57 dwelling units) of the units as workforce housing units for a total
bonus density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. This will result in a total project
density of 12.5 units per acre. There are three significant points of
disagreement between Petitioner and staff concerning the interpretation of the
density provisions of the GMP as follows:
1. Whether the overall density is limited because additional density cannot
be derived from locating affordable-workforce housing in the
commercial part of the PUD, where additional density is already
awarded;
2. Whether density bonuses can be derived from affordable-workforce
housing units that are not geographically located in the residential part
of the PUD; and
Community Development & Environmental Services
3. Whether density blending, as residential density generated from
calculations including the commercial tract can be transferred to the
residential part ofthe PUD.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding any of these agenda items or the
process itself, as always, please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Jim Mudd, County Manager
G/admin/ memo jJoseph K. Schmitt/RB/cr
Community Development & Environmental Services
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2009, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE 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 ] 0 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 - MARCH 19,2009, APRIL 2, 2009
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - APRIL 28, 2009
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition BD-2009-AR-14138, Hussein Wafapoor represented by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and
Associates, Inc., requesting a 10-foot Boat Dock Extension over the maximum 20-foot limit as provided in
section 5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a 30-foot dock facility to accommodate one vessel. Subject property
is located at 140 Conners Avenue, legally described as Lot 22, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit
No.3, Section 28, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta)
B. Petition: Petition: V A-2009-AR-14139, Hussein Wafapoor represented by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell,
Hall and Associates, Inc., is requesting a variance from Section 5.03.06 E.6. to reduce a required side yard
setback of 7.5 feet for a dock facility to 4.5 feet (along the northwest riparian line) and to 0 feet (along the
southwest riparian line). The subject property is located at 140 Conners Avenue, Section 28, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
1
C. Petition: PE-2008-AR-14071 Sandbanks LLC, represented by Michael R. Fernandez, AICP of Planning
Development Incorporated is requesting a Parking Exemption pursuant to Land Development Code
Subsection 4.05.02.K, to allow onsite parking on the contiguous 0.69 acres located at 3114 and 3126 N.
Tarniami Trail of Residential zoned land all under common ownership. More than 67 percent (132 of the
195 spaces) of the required parking are located within the commercial zoned portion of the parcel. Subject
property is loeated in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
D. Petition: PUDA-2008-AR-13801, William L. Hoover, President of Catalina Land Group, Inc. the
Manager of Wolf Creek Estates LLC and Buckstone Estates LLC; and Larry Mayer Abbo, V ice President
of Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, Ltd., all of which are represented by William L. Hoover, AICP of
Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. and Richard Y ovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman et al and Josh
Fruth of Davidson Engineering, Ine. are requesting a PUD Amendment for Wolf Creek RPUD to revise
traffic stipulations. The applicant is proposing to change Section 5.7, Paragraph N and Paragraph o of the
RPUD Document. Subject property is located on 167.96" acres in Scction 34, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: SV-2009-AR-14140, Red Roof Inn, represented by Brent Forte of Site Enhancement Services,
Inc. is requesting four Sign Variances from LDC Section 5.06.04. The first variance is from Subsection
5.06.04 C. I. which requires a minimum separation of] ,OOO-foot between signs to allow 262" feet between
signs. The second variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C.I.a. which allows a ] 5-foot high sign to allow a
23-foot high sign. The third variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C. I.e. which allows a sign area of 80
square feet to allow a sign area of 96" square teet. The fourth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 CA
which permits one wall sign to allow an additional wall sign. The subject property is located at 1925
Davis Boulevard, in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13245, Collier County through its Solid Wastc Management Departmcnt,
represented by David Deans of PBS & J, is requesting Conditional Uses within the Rural Agricultural
Zoning District within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMU)
Overlay for Sending Areas to allow I) a "Collection and Transfer Site for Resource Recovery," pursuant to
Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.0I.A.l.c.12; and 2) "Public Facilities,
including Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and
Repair Facilities" pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(Il) of the RFMU District for a project to be
known as the Resource Recovery Park. The subject property, consisting of approximately 341 acres, is
located approximately 1.5 milcs east of Collier Boulcvard and I mile north of White Lakc Boulcvard,
in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collicr County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem,
AICP)
C. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13679, Edward Larson of Messiah Lutheran Church Inc., represented by
Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc., is requesting a Conditional Use in the Estates (E) Zoning District to expand
an existing church and to add an accessory child day care center, pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01 .B.I.c.l of
the Land Development Code. The 5.15-acre subject property is located at 5800 Golden Gate Parkway in
Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss,
AICP)
2
D. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6829, Collier Davis, LLC, represented by Robert Andrea of Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Davis Reserve
MPUD. The project is proposing a maximum of 286 dwelling units and a maximum of 35,000 square feet
of commercial/office uses. An Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement is proposed for this
development that will set aside 20 percent of the units as Affordable Workforce Housing Units (57
dwelling units) for a bonus density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The subject property, consisting of
22.83 acres, is to be located in the southeast quadraut of thc interscctiou of Davis Boulcvard and
County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
E. Petition: PUDZ-2008-AR-12804, Avow Hospice Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, A1CP, of Davidson
Engineering Inc., requesting a PlJO Rezone from Community Facility (CF) and Agricultural (A) Zoning
Districts with a Waterfront Special Treatment Overlay to a Community Facility Planned Use Development
(CFPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Avow Hospice CFPUD. The 15.25" acres subject
property is for the expansion of the existing Hospice use. The subject property is south of Pine Ridge
Road at 1095 Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South and Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
I O. OLD BUSINESS
II. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
5/7/09 cepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr
3
11 b
~ W
^
N
W W
, ~
< " ~
Z W Z
m w < <
< " 0
" " " "
, 00
m
. ~ .
0
" ! "
, I
w
" 00
z
~
~
0
" 0
, m
" ~ ~ N
" 0 z
ci fii Q 0
w F
z z ~ "
0 . < z U
" ~ w m W
w "
0 0 0 ~ 00
~
()
0
0 ~
~ 0
0
0
0 0
W
0 (fJ
0
0...
0.. 0
0:::
<( 0...
U.
<(
S
tfJ~~ ~
W:::J::;;;: .lJ.,r--
8 z o~ ~ ~ . t.i
c..Qt-:JOlX ~.s..
e::::tCl wx 0 c.9 Cl
~::>~~~g:~:<=.[
C)a:::Z::r:o..o...5:tPCD
z~W(f)(l...<::(J:"": C:
i:.zffil.J..<(w:2t~
~8tt~~g5~~~
c::e::::a::lJ.,::Jl-s:~O
~0!::2c;tg::r:6~
a::~z'"n.::>~~>ls
ow82:5~U)a,~'tco
U.D 0:. a::: r.n e:::: 12- 5 g
~ill~itffi~;;';~P~
<C~z<CI-~~I\.;;':9
~;::5:~~rr:e::::3m:g
~o~5:a::~~:2l-o
5:zU)o~o.<r:::Egsw
~~::p__oo$::::Jo~
o<(:::>3<.!1UJI.J...~OO
.ol--.z(l)o-,>->-
._ W Z <( U - 0 ::r: 0 w w
~m<c~ii~~l-~>>
r--J:>-...Jo...xa:::Qoo::a:::
ol-~<r:<(UJo..S:F55~
zOo 0 000 000
<l:
00
:;;
cu
t::
<(
::l
Z
-U
.!l
<l:
, '\ ....\ .~>-,.
," , ". .\\-
" \, '\. ". " \., "-
',"'"'' ~"" __'_", :::.c:::
" -<\ ~,\ " ">\< g
'. "\ ", \ ,,'\, ",ywCl
'\ ,\\\,'\ ,\,/' 00
. ,_ '_, ',\ '\ "-.\,/' ::; 0
,"-\_~'\"'.:/ 00
\._ \\, \ "0,'\, "/: ...: S
~, <~)>/ ~ /,
. " <',';/ X<'\\
\;'(~:;>// /"", ~:<<<:',:)
\/ ",;', " '-'- ...... '.,/'
" :~ '\". '" \, ,;/
/' ~<,,, ",- '\, \ ",,,/
"w"'" ~_./
.' '\ Z. ,,,,,,'
~'/'<- __ '<:J'-/
'. \>,~J
,\-- C2
/ -<
,,/ 11..
1i'
j//'O
I- cifil
~./ M~
'" "
/
w
Z
:::i
c,_"~(< ,.'
\ ''\ "" \\ ", '\ ""
"'" \" ". "\\. ...,,,
\" ", "~ '-, -
'\'" " '\, ,/.-
" "-~ \,-/
'- '\ .~-"
'\ \ /
. ''',/.\"
'/
y/
'"
U
<(
<Il
r-
w
Cf)
r-
"-
'"
"
'"
U
-<
<Il
r-
w
Cf)
U blJ<"-lc--1
~'.E ~:g
_ "3 .,} ...;
UJ ~ ~:::b
E o;:'!;~
.~::: ~&
u ~ ..
~cJf~
=~=
<r:gz
_y 0 o::i;g
""'C,l.!::: ~;:;
:=::E;s...;
ro ~ ~:::b
:::C::0:8~~
..........- tV -< ~
<U ,2 ~:;
t::<<;:...@6
;::1""::::' u"<:
E--<"":; ~ "'-
ci1;
~E
~ 0
~
;;
"
1
f
--' e-
--'0
-<0
~ II
"-~
0--,
w:2
Uo
-<z
"-<(
f--.
:0'"
<Il,c
-< +
~ II
--'~
:20:
"":2
~-
0:
:2
r
'"
-<
o
Z
:0
o
<Il
r
r-
'"
w
Q
o
'"
Q
;;;
w~
u> N
~4:~
~U)..-
!:d:5~
Qz..J
<z"-
",0 .
:--of:Z
v;~~
~<(
z
we-
f--O
w"",
'" +
U II.
z>
ow
u--'
w!l!.
0--'
---'
~~
~-<
NW
Cf)
~
P:\0817WapafoorDock\Dfilwlngslset_10.dwg
AGENDA ITEM 8-B
-
RESOLUTION- 09-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER VA-2009-AR-14139, FOR A VARIANCE FROM
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.03.06.E.6 TO
PERMIT A REDUCED SIDE YARD (RIPARIAN) SETBACK
FROM 75 FEET TO 4.5 FEET ON ONE SIDE AND 75 FEET
TO 0 FEET ON A SECOND SIDE ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 140 CONNERS AVENUE IN SECTION 28,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST IN COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after
notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a variance
from Section 5.03.06.E.6 of the Land Development Code to permit a reduced side yard (riparian)
setback from 75 feet to 45 feet and from 7.5 feet to 0 feet, as shown on the attached Exhibit
"A", in the RSF-3 Zoning District for tbe property hereinafter described, and has found as a
matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all
applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the
Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier
County; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
Rev. 4/17/09
10f2
~",".''',
.#
Petition Number VA-2009-AR-14139 filed by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and
Associates, Ine. with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 22, Block R, Unit No.3, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, according to the
plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 89, as described in Plat Book 4299,
Page 0234, Public Records of Collier County, Florida
Folio No. 27630880000
be and the same hereby is approved for a variance to permit a reduced side yard setback from 75
feet to 45 feet and from 75 feet to 0 feet, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the RSF - 3
Zoning District, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the zoning district wherein said
property is located.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this
day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams
Assistant County Attorney f'-'"
,/.11.0 "\
Rev. 4/1 7/09
20f2
AGENDA ITEM 8-(
-
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, GRANTING PARKING
EXEMPTION PETITION PE-2008-AR-14071, IN ORDER TO
PERMIT OFF-SITE PARKING ON A CONTIGUOUS LOT
ZONED COMMERCIAL (C-4), LOCATED BETWEEN
ROSEMARY LANE AND RIDGE STREET, IN SECTION 22,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST IN COLLIER
COUNT, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of F]orida in Chapter ]25, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such husiness regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance
No_ 04--4], as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic
divisions of the County; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.05.00 of the Land Development Code sets forth requirements and
standards for off-street parking and loading facilities and permits an exemption from these
standards under certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing to
consider Parking Exemption Petition PE-2008-AR-]4071 and found that the criteria set forth in
Section 4.05.02JC3 of the Land Development Code has been met and the Petition should be
approved; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting and the BOaId having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Page 1 of2
-_.'"~
Petition PE-2008-AR-14071 filed by Michael R. Fernandez of Planning Development
Incorporated representing Sandbanks, LLC is approved to permit off-site parking on contiguous
land zoned Commercial (C-4), more particularly described in Exhibit A.
The off-street parking shall comply with the Site Plan dated December, 2008, and
prepared by Planning Development Incorporated., attached hereto as Exhibit B, and shall be
subject to the conditions attached in Exhibit C
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County,
Florida, this
day of
,2009.
ATIEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
, Deputy Clerk
By:
DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Steven 1. Williams
Assistant County Attorney j(.) b"\
l?
Exhibits: A Legal Description
B Site Plan
C Conditions of Approval
Page 2 of2
.
-.:
E-<
-
Is
~
""
.
i
. ,
en Ii!
Q,)\O........:.......IM\o l\Oi--
J... V c-r: M iN ~ .I~ i,.'"
u 0 0 0)0 6 10:0
-.: i 'i
I !
0, '10 v-, 10, I",
N \0 N 100 1'7
~I~ ~ I~I:::
, I
i I
~ j I!
g r-- iv-, v-, ir-- 0 1",100
~ v-"r-- r--Ir-- 0 I~'I~
~ ~ I~ ~ I~ ~ I""""""
Oil I
if i ii I
-J l1) t) I u :-;:::: I I
"e ! ~ ~ j ~ ~ J I
~ E-<!~ ~i~ E-<1~lo
~ .- i >, >, i C .- III I "
~ 51= =1'_ 81 b
'l:l w '. ,. ,. ""I1Zl,1Zl
~ .~ II ~ ~ I ~ .~ i~l~
... 1-< 0 010 1-<,._,,-
~ ~I~ ~I~ ~J~I~
~ .......I~ N1N .......IN N
lJ)r"110\0\10\ t"liO"lO\
I J I
N ~i~ ~i~ ~I~I~
~ ~ i~ O\!O\ ~ i~ ~
tlN1N ~I~ ~/IN1IN
~ NIN NiN N N N
I' " i I
00 I)
I 1- I I
i ij ~ 1_II'v-,
I 1,- '" i~ on
: 1.0""" 13'~
'I Iv-, ~ ''-0 I:;;
I'" "
'D' /""" ~ 3 1::!:'!3
~ [I;::; - I.", 3 ~ '13
",,"'~I~ a c:: j c:: c::
",100 is:! \O.E I'E I'E
2/213 ::j:.a;;:;,'Bj'B
3331'3~"'~,~
0: 212 3 212.31312
~~I~~~~~ ~I~
";: 11) IlJ U 11) IlL>;:::.:' OJ Q.)
'" :c ':C :c :c :c > :c ,:I:
~ c >, >, >'1 c~ >,1 c
~ '" a a al''''~lal'''
;; g gig g 5~151g
~ ~ ~Io OIOl'''Jol~
... ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ """ I~ I~
, I
0, 00 /'" """ I 0 -I",
o 10 0 0 I 0 0 ,0
gl818 g g 818
00 I'" 00 \0 00 \0 I"""
:f:t: 0 .......!N f"I")! 0....... N
o 01'010 0 000
...... r-- r-- r-- r--I '" '" '"
o ~'~I~ ~ 0 010
~ ;2/.;2;;2 ;2 'I ~ I~ ~
, I I i
S -.: I!XI!!XI U iP IUlIl1<
! i i I!
"
~
"
i:'..
p:
o
NiO\
\OlN
"""'0
-iN
~
,
~
<
.
,
.
,
~
5
.
,
I
r.:~?f:t~'~...., n
~.:: : '.;"':'~'~. ~ S
- 1 I
~
:::
<
~
>
.
~
"
9
~
~
~
~
~
v
5
;
o
EAST PROPERTY LINE (ADJACENT TO RE510ENTlALl BUFFER
15 FOOT MINtMUW WIDTH (\IARIESFROW 15 FT TOoIOFT)BUFFER
WfT1-I INTEGRATED 0 FOOT HIGH PREFABRICATED CONCRETE
WM..lJFE"'CE ~ SflRUBS ON 90TH SIDES TO BE MAINTAINED AT
A MINIMUM HEIGHT Of 0 FEET; MID, TREES Z5 FEET ON CENTER
INSTALLED Wffi1A ".INIMUW HflGHTOF 10 FED
PAAKlNG EXEJ.lPTIDN AREA
~ -'"~.
i ~~~~;;DOE\lELDPMENT
1 10'FT.UINIWLlMWlDTHBUFFERWT1l1
INTEGRATED.! FOOT HIGH
I ?REFABA:ICATED CONCRETE
WAl.l..JRlNCE WI""" SHRUBS ON eo,.".,
SlOES TOElE lllAlNTAl'NEDAT A MINIMUM
HEIGHT OF e FEET, AND, TREES )0 FEEl
ON CENTER INSTALL-ED wrTt1 A MINIMUN
H!:.lGHT OF \4 FEET
HAID<><EY
.?..,.....,.,.I~
Op....""''''
.auild~
RSF-4RU~"I..IZ..~DIoIrd
t
RlWWlDlK9\JFFER
COLLIER coUNTY LAND PEVB.DPMENl
COOE(l.DC)TYPED
10'FT MINIMUM WIDTH BUfFER Wllli
INTEGRATED 4 FooT HIOK
P'I'tEFAIIRICATED CONCRETE
WALi.A'ENCE 'MTH SHflUBS ON BOru
SIDES TO BE MAINTAINED AT A M1N1MUM
HEIGHT OF 0 FEET; ANO. TREES 30 FEEl
ON CENTEIl: INSTAJ..lB) WITH A M1IolIIoWM
HE1G){l 01' 14 FEEl
C4 Com".rclool~o;.lrid.
PROvroED PARKING:
(PARKlI'fG EXEMPl10N AREA)
113 F'ARKlNG SPACES (<33%)
RSF...R....anliaIZO..r.gDItti:l
(WEST OF PARKltKl EXEWFTlDI'l)
132 PARKING SPM:ES (~1%)
C4c...m......::..ZDnInvOillr'<:l
1DS TOTAL PARKING SPACES (100%)
W N lWAD
TO LANDSCAPED DRIVEWAV ENTRV
ISLANDS OH RIDGE STREET ~
RDSElIlARY LANE AS DEPICTED
RM'BUFFER:
CDLlJER COUNTY U.t.lD DEVl::LOPMEt.lT
cOOE(LDC)T1'PED
1tI'FT_MIN1MUMWlDTHI!IUI'l'€RWiTH
TREES 25FEE1 ON CENTERlt.lST.o\l.LEO
WIT1-I A IolINIMUM HEIGfIT OF 10 - 12 FEET;
ANO, OOUEll.-E ROW t1El)GE Of SH\<UElS
MAINTAlr-rEO AT A MINIMUM Of ~ INCHES
It.lHI:IGHf
A/'N8UFFER;
COLLrE-R COUNTY LAND OI:VELDPIolENT
~(\..DCITYPED
10'FT, 1I1NIMUM WIDTH BOFFERWITH
TREES 3D FEET ON CENTER INS1AlLED
WITH A MINII.lUI.l HEIGHl Of 10 _12 FEET:
1lNO, DOUBlE ROW KEDGE ~ SHRUBS
MAINTAINED AT A MINIMUM OF 38 INCHES
rNKEIG){l
.
il
'i
\j
II
,
i
I
,...---_..r-
I---~-
\--
;--- - -.-'
'\ --, I~
I -- I
I
,
J
w._
w._
"'EV PLAN I EXISTlNG CCNDlTlONS
SCALE; 1.~100'
EXHIBIT
~,.~.",
@
.'" -'j'
I. .
.'" -"
::I;;E; ~
",fV PLAN lCOMa,lEflCIAL IRF.SIDENTrAL
70NlNG DfSlGNAllONS
SCALE, 1'.. lOll'
'1 SI"fE I'LA-N WITHl'" PARKING EXE~ON AREA SI-IALL liE SUllSTAN11.o.lL Y OOt.lSlSTENT
WITHDEPlenoN
~) THE PARI(lI'tG EXEJ,TIQt.I PAIIKING Sf'ACES Ill-\AL.I. liE fl:ESTRlCTED TO
IoEETlHG PARKIHG REQUlflEIolEW:I FQR OfFICE sPACE
3) SITE PLAN. BUIlDING FOOTl"I!:INT /IKJ LAlCI USE. WITHIN DI ZOhED
SI1'E AREA ARE COttCEPTUAL At.lO """y CHANGE PllOVlOEO Tl-l'E
CKANGE\S\ ME OOolSlSTEN1 WITH ro.Pf"o.-~ U)C OEYElOPy\;t<T
STANDAflD5AHDPAl!:lONGEXEr.o>TIOf<lC()l.lNlTloEW-s'
4) DEVELOPMENT OF A P'ARK1HG GAMGE OH THE COMMERCIAll. Y lONE !'OIl:TlDN 15
PAOI-HBITED
"_""E.U>O'T"",/l"El~tWW1&
, _lI'IlI'OfTHE~"_~""","""""'AIlUSIW.lKII(~TIlIC1'E01000c-""",,,","~--S>;~
OfO""lU-'1OOI _otU.PCC-Tt..MSmCIl""'..,"......,~...eul0~oFU!if~'...MV."..
...,.....Tnooo<.otlfM>O,T
NOTES.
~ _P_UEIIIP'T"",,,,,,,,,,,,,.,w:v;,aoiO'-.lKRE5T"'<:1EDror.alIHOP_lECllfAfoenIFOllllfl'Cl:IlI"Aai
, """"'...""....~_>ttITX>I<ol.P'_f:lll"...,""""_-.-......~OTtl--..a"-
. """"'..,""""""1"""'X01'lOO<AlI"""UH(lEXl'...TIOM)""""""''''''''...'''''''-l!IEPOsTEI>M!>'!OB.....EDl'''''...,.."...."--''''
Rf$""L1B>"fT>E-.om._
~....
:-J
I P"""'''''WT'''''''TMI......._AUllTQWI"_EXE...''''''IP_............lL..''''..-...::TEO'''L....,OU1\JOU...'''...''''
"""lUti_IIO(lA[ATDlT>wolGIIO€l'
"'..,"'.....uIll'IIO~lO:Ea~".,~M,!ffiE.,ITOn<E>ttI'",.,.....IP_EX9o!f'1>DNI...,..,..,-~ ~S!l.
lO,..S.......""'_A...........__~II"""--lTZCOOl'D-,.,T
, .-..-.:-""W',..~l.... .....""""'-l._.,.....,lC1N).........._~...........,,..OoQ.!.EIlCOO""'lNIDl>E'o'ElOl"K"" OC>CJE
~-IJ<;)IlEQUll>'...""."'_lNUICAI"1HDTO_~.,...,...."I-_HD""~......\...."~
\II.JI'-.."....~.""'"...\""'~l!IlJ\IClDlO"'RET:~......1~...l'N.>ITl'If!..."'''''''_t:t.E.O"
""0"",01"' rUl J.NJ..........."""I""'-i ""'IIlOf"lul
"".......U"'."""'T"""_El<E....l""'AAU,TOTK..woa"""""......."..
.'-'......
'<""_-"0'
'"._Of _.""'Of "ll""
_or ""'''OF ...,,,.
,..""''''"~..
u,r~''''"~''
","""H
"'" ..~" ,.,----
.....,,,..."",...."',,....,..-....oro
,,,",,,...,,,,.,,,
"".-=....."'-,......"" ..........,,""n""".......d'''.,O_. ...."""
.~
.FOOT_f"-""<CATED<X>HC:1OET!WAU.,\DCIITtO......_"'._,""""'...~P<OOPE,.,...U"'-:W<tHI....'~.ODT'.,oE
[;("LIl:"CO\.O'fT"Il."-N:IotW\l:ft'EWTroa:T'I'I'fI~--'
..on~""'-~IH"U" UlCA1ll>~l.._..""-~FE"""'tIJC>(....,AfT'l"")PU'CE"TOf_..AU
......,.....o<<:Jt..SCIll'aE1l""......""'"I')'TUI\OO'_"..,"'-1Anc.oDf....,~Dl'l"'M....nTll>l...~"'ootSH"'-'-
1IE'0CA1'-ODV1'!O(ll'Of_.......~-...IIIi_~-...o<ElIm~>E.....Df'.f1:n. ...._....T""'sn;1t.."""'-'-.
....,"l.lSlm.-...E_lX>IlI1TooJEll......uT"fOl_vEl>O~lM'..:fIlEt<.
"REEpt.l$AEET_l...~..TTllE.T..OfIlO5T4U.AT'ION......uJE..~Of>llO"'-l.DNl.aOCrH..f..,FtCI'"terlMT
"'-""..'"""""'CAl~I.T.llO'E._T'*(NOCt.OCll~.""'.moT_""
co....""..."".....".. "......'
0'-'-'<'< """>0,",,,,",
...."'....-...
_"_~WT "-~___----=~~E!-
""oo~,O'''''O''''O'O
-.-.-'---'---
oPT~.."""..."",......", -'"
PRr......................'"
Ic-...~._'''''''.........''''''.
''''''''T....-''''''''''.....'
--'
.~-
."""T_''"''''''"..T{~~Tf-..-'U_...FOD'W'Dl'ClOU.IE~COU...".''''''O!:E'''''-~OOOET''"''..~
~~,
""".-r~Th'E ",-"",_.......,. N """'""'i""'"~ '0 1><1: woo..,.oo......, f'flT!!IlI)""""''''........ w,,-,-AHOOI<FEtoOE IS
!ICI\E....,,__DO<E!Tl_Of'TltEM1....I...:1....0f....."~....TMi...TaUI.,....,_'-~MI.U...,I/08'>.U.ED10
'_lWEcnm>o/JED-..,......lHElIEOfT..TMa::lOU>I _~o~.....HEDol:lIElll'_"'........IIl'......T
..n-t:w-"IJ. THE.,......,...,HEooc*"Uooc....,.....uc>_-"10..HI!IOIo/TOf.ff:n
""., "EA~fftT, __....1 THE TOE<:#' ...n0UArcr<SlWJ.1IIE"__<:#' 2l1)AlLO<<5.fOI.Oll{'"'''l''C! """,,,<1
"...'''.,I->KO<'''''-'~.1-'l'''''""'''~__''''_'''''...........,,-..<>
.
,."n
""'_......' ,......"...,..' ,......"""_.."'t>,."......O.,Al"'.
.11<U::T_...m'T...><EJG"'0Il0.....'.A
..........""""""......,.,.,"""".."'"""', 015"-",-''''' '"""~""" 01
"'-"'-"'..,,,.,,,"',.,""..."'"',,,.,
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED
YDTOWN POINT
--
CONCEPTUAL. SITE F'\.AN
.....,.....,-'Tn<C;.."""''''w.
,...n
<EV"'-OP...""c.r:>NaIL1.....,.",E>l'3'''"'fN.~~~~..
--,...,--------
-~
-.....-
-.-
---
I'<N'U'..FL~"'"
--_.._~- --~~-
.."'C'O'$TlOLLOORI'<'E.~UfTE2,..""'-.B..">R'DA;"O""
PE-2008-AR-14071 Midtown Point Commitments:
L The use of the additional 0.69oi acres parking exemption area shall be restricted to serve
normal office business hours of operation. Signage will be posted restricting the parking
exemption spaces to hours of use between 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
2. The parking exemption is limited to a maximum of 63 parking spaces and shall be
restricted to meeting parking requirements for office space.
3. Parking within the additional parking exemption area is restricted to surface parking.
4. Parking within the additional parking exemption area shall be posted with signage
designation the parking as restricted to employees parking who work at The Midtown
Point development
5. Parking lot lighting within the parking exemption area will be restricted to light fixtures
having an overall height no greater than 42 inches.
6. There shall be no direct access from the adjacent streets to the parking exemption area.
Access to this parking area shall be via the commercially zoned property.
7. Landscaping within the parking exemption area shall exceed Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC) requirements by providing landscaping to the following
standard: Each parking space shall abut a landscape buffer; an interior parking lot
landscape island; or a tree diamond that supports a palm tree having a minimum clear
height of7 feet and a minimum overall height of 14 feet
8. The buffers from the parking exemption area to the adjacent uses shall be:
a. To Abutting Residential Lots:
· A 6-foot prefabricated concrete wall, located a minimum of 4 feet from
the common property line; within a 15-foot wide Collier County LDC
Type B Landscape Buffer;
· Vegetative plantings shall be located external to the wall and/or fence such
that 50 percent of the wall and/or fence are screened within 1 year of the
installation of said vegetative material. A continuous hedge shall be
installed to ensure the continued viability of the vegetative screen;
. 1 tree per 25 feet, the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum
of30 gallons, ]6 feet in height, have a 2.5 inch caliper (at 12 inches above
the ground) and a 6-foot spread.
b. To Ridge Street and Rosemary Lane Right-of-Way:
. A 4- foot prefabricated concrete wall within a 10- foot wide LDC Type D
Landscape Buffer;
· Vegetative pJantings shall be located external to the wall and/or fence such
that 50 percent of the wall and/or fence are screened within 1 year of the
installation of said vegetative material. An irrigation system shall be
installed to ensure the continued viability of the vegetative screen. The
required double row hedge requirement shall be split by the wall. The
composite hedge shall be grown and maintained to a height of 6 feet
. One (I) tree per 30 feet, the trees at the time of installation shall be a
minimum of25 gallons, 14 feet in height, have a 2.5 inch caliper (at ]2
inches above the ground) and a 5- foot spread.
Exhibit C
-, - "._--'-_.-_.,----..__.~_.~
AGENDA ITEM 8-D
-
ORDINANCE NO. 09 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 07-46, WOLF CREEK
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD),
BY AMENDING THE COVER PAGE; BY AMENDING
SECTION 5.7, PARAGRAPHS "N" AND "0", FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (C.R 862), APPROXIMATELY
ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R
951), IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF
167.96 ~ ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance
No. 07-46, which established the Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and
WHEREAS, William L. Hoover, President of Catalina Land Group, Inc., the Manager of
Wolf Creek Estates, LLC and Buckstone Estates and Larry Mayer Abbo, Vice-President of Prime
Homes at Portofino Falls, Ltd., all of which are represented by William L. Hoover of Hoover
Planning and Development, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson,
Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. and Josh Fruth of Davidson Engineering petitioned the Board of
Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to amend Ordinance 07-46, the Wolf
Creek Residential Planned Unit Development.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, tbat:
SECTION ONE:
AMENDMENTS TO THE COVER PAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. 07-46,
WOLF CREEK RPUD, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT.
The Cover Page of the Residential Planned Unit Development previously attached as Exhibit
"A" to Ordinance 07-46, the Wolf Creek RPUD, is hereby amended to read as follows;
Words struck thrsl:lgh are deleted~ words underlined are added.
Wolf Creek RPUD, PUDA-2008-AR-13801
Revised 4/23/09
Page 1 of 3
..,,,;0.
EXHIBIT "A"
WOLF CREEK RPUD
A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNJNG THE WOLF CREEK RPUD, A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF TIlE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
PREPARED FOR:
LARRY MAYER ABBO, V.P.
PRIME HOMES, INC
21218 ST. ANDREWS BLVD., #510
BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33433
and
WILLIAM L HOOVER, PRES. of CATALINA LAND GROUP, INC, the MANAGER of
WOLF CREEK ESTATES, LLC and BUCKSTONE ESTATES, LLC
~3785 AIRPORT ROAD N., SUITE B,l
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105
PREPARED BY:
BMlKS ENGl}lliE:RING HOOVER PLANNING & DEV.. INC
2515 NORTlIDROOKE PL'\Z/\ DRNE 3785 AIRPORT ROADN. SUITE ;umB-I
NAPLES, FLORIDA J4l-l-9 J41 05
ROBERT PRITT
ROETZEL & f.NDRESS, LPA
g50 Pf.RK ~lIORE BOU'_EV1\RD, 3RD FLOOR
l't\PLES, FLORID,^' 31103
and
RlCHARD D. YOV ANOVICH
GOODLETIE, COLEMAN, & JOHNSON, YOV ANOVICH & KOESTER, PA
4001 TAMIAMITRAILN.,#300
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103
DATE FILED
DATE REVISED September 5, 2008
DA TE REVISED
DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC
DATE APPROVED BY Bce
ORDINANCE NUMBER 2003 15
AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 03-45.0],1.1i
Words stnJe.k thre1:lgn aTe deleted; words underlined are added.
Wolf Creek RPUD, PUDA-2008-AR-13801
Revised 4/23109
Page 2 of 3
SECTION TWO:
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5.7, ENTITLED "TRAFFIC", PARAGRAPHS
"Nt' ANn "0",
Subsection 5.7. Paragraphs "N" and "0" of the Residential Planned Unit Development previously
attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance 07-46, the Wolf Creek RPUD, are hereby amended to read as follows:
N. Within 30 days of the adoption date of this RPUD rezone, the developers owning the property
fronting Pristine Drive shall convey in fee simple to Collier County the right-of-way necessary
for the two-lane construction of Pristine Drive, Each developer shall convey 30 feet for the
Pristine Drive right-of-way. The anticipated width of the right-of-way is 60 feet The turn
lanes required for each individual project shall be accommodated within the project's
boundary. There are existing SDPs and plats within the PUD issued to individual developers
within the PUD, No further Certificates of Occupancv or development orders shall be issued
to anv individual developer within the PUD within an alreadv approved SDP or plat until that
individual developer convevs all of the right ofwav for the portiones) of Pristine Drive owned
bv that individual developer whether the right of way is located within an approved SDP or
plat or located outside of an approved SDP or plat
O. The aeyole"er "hall Btart eeRstruetioB af'.vithin aRe year eft.fle appro'.'al efthis rerUD rezaRe,
Effia saia readwa)' BRall be BOHstruetea to CalID!)' "t""daras EffiG accopted 8)' Cellier County
through tRe Hormal Bee"l'tBflce procesG. Saia readway shall 8e complete withi" a flIffiliffiliffi of
twe years fea", the a!'Pro',-BI date of thiG RPUD rezeHe. No further SDPs or plats shall be
approved for anv individual owner within the PUD until Pristine Drive from its current
terminus to Wolfe Road is under construction and all of the necessary right of wav has been
dedicated. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued within new Site Development Plans
and/or Plats until Pristine Drive. from its current terminus to Wolfe Road, is substantially
complete.
SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
THIS ORDINANCE ADOPTED after motion. second and super-majority vote favoring same this
day of ,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
Approved as to fonn and
legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams
Assistant County Attorney 5'f.';ZS'c..,
Words stfuc!c 1:BrBllgh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Wolf Creek RPUD, PUDA-2008-AR-13801
Revised 4/23/09
Page 3 of 3
r
~F
IMM"
Dawn Hughes
General Manager
AGENDA ITEM 9-A
239-774-3117
Fax: 239-775-5333
i0237@redroof.com
Co1fr:-y County
- '-~..... -
STAFF REPORT
1925 Davis Boulevard Naples. FL 34104
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: APRIL 16,2009
SUBJECT: PETITION SV-2009-AR-J4J40, RED ROOF INN
.
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Applicant:
Red Roof Inn
J 925 Davis Boulevard
Naples, FL 34 J 04
Agent:
Brent Forte
Site Enhancement Services
6001 Nimtz Parkway
South Bend, IN 46628
REOUESTED ACTION:
The applicant is requesting a total offoUT (4) Sign Variances from Section 5_06.00 of the Land
Development Code (LDC). The first variance request is to allow an on-premise pole sign to be
located less than J ,000 feet from another sign to allow 262010 feet between signs. The second
variance request is from Subsection 5.06.04 C. La. which allows a J5-foot high sign to permit a
23-foot high sign. The third variance request is from Subsection 5_06.04 C.Lc. which allows a
sign area of 80 square feet to permit a sign area of 96010 square feet. The fourth variance is from
Subsection 5.06_04 CA which permits one wall sign to allow an additional wall sign.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located at 1925 Davis Boulevard, in Section 2, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the location map on the following page.)
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The applicant proposes to replace existing old signage at the Red Roof Inn, a 36 year old motel.
The proposed wall sign (Sign A) will replace an existing wall sign with a smaller sign in
approximately the same location on the west building elevation. The proposed wall sign (Sign B)
will replace an existing wall sign with a smaller sign in approximately the same location on the
south building elevation. The proposed on-premise sign (Sign C) will replace an existing on-
premise pole sign face that was permitted in J 995_ (See sign details on the following pages.)
SV-2009-AR-14140
3-26-09
Page 1 of 13
~
z
"
,! '
=
~
, -
u.. z
en wQ
a: ':: I;;(
wU
o
~
"1"
u
.
~
~
,$
>
"
~
~-
~'
a.
I
I
I
I - I
1 II
--------}:,,-
S3ld'o'N~f~
,
,
,
\'\
\ \
\
Ii
/,
I
,
r--
(/--"
~--
n"""Ol"'" /
-
I-
!OL '31~lS~llNI
~-
,~-
S]'''O"""..."J!~
1- ,
~ ~ I ;
,
/,-----
..I
i,
~~
cJ
",
a!
ll"""""".:>L_
i ''':''iio-
i-='~=""~~~
!i'- ---"--
i~
- '----
I
l'
,
,
~
,
~ ~ ~~~ ~,
! ~~d:; ,.
"'~ ~
_.- it I
"h Ji
~ ,,~ii5
, ~-
'.
~T ~]~~
i l.__J
Cl'O'O~ ..olSON'^'1
,
Cl'O'01l ~~~?~"'~
~~~
~g'ij
, ,"\1
~~ N ill. ~
\c ~ (;
i
,
oil
,~""',c,...
"
("..nl
"""'1 ",,"''''~1
~~ ~ . ~
c~ W '" -
_ ~=<L~~~~~~. ~-~/
a..
<(
:2:
c:>
z
z
o
N
~I
'"
'"
0>
o
o
N
>
UJ
..
Z
o
f-
f-
W
CL
a..
<(
:2:
z
o
I-
<(
o
o
....J
0)
LL
o
(\J
i
~-'~
S LL_ III
_ (Il Z
\.a... ~ (l
() '" (jj
&~ 5
r-- it
&~ I
o
z
~
5
Z
w
~
Q.
~
W
a:
w
u.
u.
1i
w
~
~
~
w
~
w
a:
::l
~
~
9
w
Ii:
~
z
o
~
'-'
o
-'
w
-'
u:
:;;
a..
z
o
"" iii
19 '>
;;: w.J
o '"
w
b
~lL:gZ
a: LL c.J
0::::> N c.i
::;; I C\i ~
w
~ a ~ ~
ozcn(l
~<ca:{j)
8j 5
~ ~ ~ a:
V'J 0.. c::! W
c: ~
.c:.1 ~
fi! ~
~;.r ~
~~
<(
z
"
-
en
co
LL
o
LL '"
rr
r.Jl
In
~
co
o
~
z
o
i=
~
..J
W
I-
(/l
W
::
c
w
(/l
o
Q.
O(f]
0:1-
Q.Z
<(
Z
~
en
...:
u..
rr
r.Jl
N
~
In
M
N
z
o
~
~
..J
W
I-
(/l
W
::
"
z
i=
(/l(f]
-I-
i:'jz
o
8
~
6'
~--'~
~ LL (/)
~ - Z
.. m (!)
~Ciin
r. '" z
.....z<
~I Q
r-- a:
'" w
~C\1 ~
r-- <
^~'"' I
I..K~
a
Z
~
i=
a
Z
w
~
"-
f-
Z
w
a:
~
is
w
a:
<
~
~
(/)
f-
Z
W
~
w
a:
:J
(/)
~
~
9
w
[
z
o
~
u
o
---'
Lei
---'
w:
:2
a.
z
o
"" Vi
CJ ;;:
;,: UJ
o ""
~
<
ill
f-
a
~LL~~
o:LLN.
o ::J "! 0
::;: I ;':' :;:;
Z W I (/J
I(3LLZ
o Z (f] \2
'"'"'J <( cr: (f)
Z
~ ,.:.. 5
:;i ~ ~ it
U1 0.. -::r:: w
~
! I
S2 ~
.coc. ~ 0
.j:l== Z
5 E.521 ~
=ca~ Q
~~
<(
Z
G
-
CJ)
0..
<(
u
:;;
0:
f-
ill
U
it
o
a:
b
o
ill
a:
"
:!:
N
w
o
ill
-"
o
w
a:
'-"
z
9
z
<(
9
(fJ
-"
-"
~
~
11i
u
<(
a:
:;;
::l
Z
:;;
::l
-"
<(
a:
w
z
W
f-
(fJ
it
ill
-"
OJ
f"
5
(fJ
:>J
0..
0..
::l
(fJ
a:
ill
~
0..
r
r
L
1
r
~
'"
,..
11%: ~-iG ~
--n'Y. 9-,t?~
z
a:
::l
f-
ill
a:
:;;
::l
Z
:;;
::l
-"
<(
::>
a:
J:
I-
Z
o
i=
(.)00
WI-
CJlZ
-'
~
W
C '"
a: ~
00
w" 0
I::~
w 11 I'-'
-' 1.1.
..J~ 0
w- oo
Z .. ...J
Z~ ~
<t<(
J:() 0
(.)00 I---
00
w
--'
a.
I--- a.
Z ::>
00 00
a:1--- a:
1.1.0 w
Ww :>
a:1--- :>
Oz 01---
l-- c..w
wet Zw
0, ;;: a:
I--- 00 I--- 1--0
O;.-,ZZ_
w<(OOa:
~$:ff:U!:,
::>1'5i\!~[;i
O<(O(/)-
:;;"'1---;>,0
(/)F--(/)~~
0: XI [jJ 00
~t-.~O::J
~i5~~5
. . .
CJl
a:
w 00
I:: Z
W a:
--' ::>
--' I---
W i\!
Zoo "
Zo ()
<tW
J:--' :S
(.)0 CO~
I-W Wo
-a: I---
--'l9 1---:;;
WZ(j)U)<Cc:
(.)ow ,,:;; I---
~--'()():;;W
. zLt:<(::>1---
00<( COZ::;
"'OO:;;~W
u.ouig:::>::>$:
OZ--'W
I---~O~<(~
Wl-W~O
(/)::JCC...Jq-O
~WO<(",:S
ocb('l')xw
UJ ...... f'-,. co _ _
Zi1:(\J~ln;""
O. .. .. .. ..
@Cl
......
=. ~
00
1.1.
o
...
o
8
~
~
C'l
o
~--'~
$ 1.1. (fJ
... ul Z
I. ~ Q
~a.(fJ
() '" Z
I"o.z<(
^~ I ~
I...M; r--- a:
~ gJ ~
r--- <(
Cit%~
a:
a
z
~
f::
a
z
w
(fJ
~
0-
f-
Z
W
a:
w
~
B
w
a:
<(
~
~
w
:;:
w
a:
:J
~
:;:
o
.J
W
[
~
<(
W
f-
a
00 z
'"
'"
'"
"
z
o
~
u
o
---'
<(
z
~
ii5
w
---'
c:
:;;:
a.
z
o
'" Vi
19 :;;
5 w
o '"
z
~
o
:;;
Z
I
o
---,
1.1.
~ (j
I ~ ~
!:!:! , If)
19u.z
z 00 G
<( a: iii
z
Vi 5
~ ~ ~ ffi
:;:
c: <(
CC I
~ ~
.c'!: C/) a
~=c: z
5 e,52l ~
C:CCC/) Q
~I-. ~
~8
m
z
"
-
en
z
o
~
w
-'
w
J:
I-
:;)
o
CIl
C
w
CIl
o
a.
OCf)
l!:1-
a.z
z
o
!i
>
w
-'
w
J:
I-
:;)
o
CIl
Cl
z
F
CIlCf)
-I-
[;lz
-
LL
tr
en
<0
"':
N
N
ro~t":s. '-'-- ~
;n _<>> C) ~
~ C\7&,-
~f1
I .._~
~;/~O-,9
..:
LL
tr
en
"'!
<t
'"
r-- "--
::! ~c==
, 1[ r::/j=
-----"'--I
,,' ,-.9
co
z
"
en
ro
LL
o
"'
8
'"
~
"
8
S-'~
<!" LL (/)
... - z
"'~G
\.a- Ci iii
roo.. '" Z
.....zo:
~ I Q
I'- II
'" w
"'l::s N ~
&~ ~
II
o
Z
~
5
z
w
~
"-
~
W
II
W
"-
"-
is
w
II
0:
~
I
f-
~
Z
w
~
W
II
:J
(/)
~
~
9
w
[
z
o
~
u
o
~
LU
~
u:
:;;
a.
z
o
"" Ui
'-' ;;
'" LU
o ""
~
0:
~
~LL~~
a::: LL N ,
o :;) ~ (j
:2: I ~ ~
Z ~ , (/)
I (!) LL Z
o Z Cf) Q
"""') <( IT: (()
Z
~ .: r:-: 5
< ~ ~ i!
(fJ Cl. c::( W
~
0:
~
II
o
Z
~
G
~
o
(j
c:
Cl:l
~
.,c:'E:CI:l
+==c:
C.E=
CI ,_
C:Cl:lCl:l
~
()
z
C}
-
CJ)
it
cr-
en
"!
LO
'"
z
9
>-
a.
c
UJ
III
o
c.
Oen
a:f-
c.z
it
cr-
en
"!
to
'"
z
9
>-
a.
Cl
Z
i=
enCfJ
-f-
(;lz
u
z
~
en
co
u..
o
"-
o
~
z
o
~
u
o
---'
w
---'
c;:
:2
CL
Z
Q
"" tf)
19 '>
'" w
o ""
i
c
In addition to the eXlstmg Red Roof Inn on-premise sign (Sign C) located along Davis
Boulevard, therc is an existing on-premise sign for an IHOP restaurant (Sign D) located
approximately 252 feet away from the Red Roof Inn on-premise sign. There is also an existing
directional entry sign (Sign E) located approximately 12 feet away from the Red Roof Inn on-
premise sign. The applicant proposes to remove the existing directional entry sign_ (Sign E).
The requested variances for each sign are as follows:
1. The first variance is from Section 5.06.04 C. 1. of the Land Development Code (LDC),
which rcquires a minimum separation of 1,000 linear feet between signs to allow a
separation of 262clc feet between Sign C and Sign D (existing IHOP sign) as shown on the
Site Plan.
2. The second variance is horn Section 5.06.04 c.I.a. of the Land Development Code
(LDC), which allows a maximum height of J 5 feet for a pole sign to allow a height of
23clc feet. (Sign C)
3. The third variance is horn Section 5.06.04 C.l.c. of the Land Development Code (LDC)
which allows a maximum sign area of 80 square feet to allow a pole sign area of 96010
square feet (Sign C)
4. The forth variance is from Section 5.06.04 CA. of the Land Development Code (LDC),
which requires that one wall sign shall be permitted for each single-occupancy parcel, to
allow two wall signs on the Red Roof Inn building. (Signs A and B)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Parking area for adjacent Grand Inn hotel with a zoning designation of C-4
East: Capital Pawn Shop and then a marina with a zoning designation of C-4
South: Davis Boulevard then a vacant property with a zoning designation of C-4-GTMUD-
MXD (Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District)
West: Grand Inn, a hotel with a zoning designation of C-4
SV-2009-AR-14140
3-26-09
Page 8 of 13
t~,: '~; ~~:,:;o.,,~_,.
~,.,.~ .,,,\~.,.--,-,,,~~;..
. L)'.i" \V-'....., .~-~-:::!>:;:.,. .
'f,~I"':.E.~l.l""Y~~l'~&~,~'>l>~r.l.::'f..r,,'l..,:;~\,$,-l:t~j:'/,~~'-I\~
AERIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
The subject property is located in the Urban Designation of the Future Land Use Map of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP does not address individual Sign Variance requests
but focuses on the larger issue of the actual use.
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 Sign 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 Conunission (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 of the land, structure or building involved?
Yes. The Red Roof Inn is located approximately J 80 feet north of Davis Boulevard (SR
84), the principal arterial road serving the property. The Red Roof Inn is separated from
Davis Boulevard by an IHOP restaurant, a parking lot and a landscape buffer located along
the right of way. The Red Roof Inn is a low scale building and is not readily visible from
Davis Boulevard. The wall sign (Sign B) located on the southern building fayade faces
towards Davis Boulevard. Because the subject hotel is not on a comer lot, it is only
allowed one sign pursuant to Section 5.06_04_CA of the LDC.
SV-2009-AR-14140
3-26-09
Page 9 of 13
The second wall sign (Sign A) is located on the western building fayade. The Red Roof
Inn is also one of three hotel sites that are interconnected through their parking lots on the
northeast comer of Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard. The Red Roof Inn, of the
three hotels, has the poorest visibility internal to the site. Once a guest is in the parking lot,
the second waU sign provides some visibility to the Red RoofInn_
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?
No. This motel is setback from the main thoroughfare, Davis Boulevard_ However, the
hotel operator chose this location back off of the road. The on-premise sign (Sign C) is a
pre-existing non-conforming sign that was permitted in J995.
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?
Not to the applicant directly. Any hardship may be experienced by the patrons using the
property as they attempt to navigate the site which is interconnected and contains three
other buildings. The existing wall signs on the building help identify the location of the
building within the "shared" site and are not visible from Davis Boulevard or US 4J,
therefore they have minimal aesthetic impact. The existing on-premise sign is permissible
and provides visibility from the street. The presence of the IHOP sign and the
configuration of the property significantly constrain the location of the on-premise sign.
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. As previously stated, the proposed wall signs are smaller than the existing wall signs
that were permitted 8 years ago and will provide identification to a building that shares a
site with three other buildings, therefore assisting the public with site navigation.
However, the proposed on-premise sign will be replacing the same size sign that was
permitted 14 years ago. This is not the minimum variance possible for the on-premise
sign_ The sign area is 96 square feet instead of the LDC prescribed sign area of 80 square
feet and has a height of 23 feet instead of the LDC prescribed height of J 5 feet for a pole
sign. Pursuant to the LDC, the currently allowable sign dimensions have been deemed to
be reasonable and adequate by the community through their adoption in the Land
Development Code.
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 regulations
specific to a site. The granting of the first Sign Variance request will allow for an additional
on-premise sign within 1,000 lineal feet of another on-premise sign. The granting of the
second Sign Variance request would allow the on-premise sign to have an additional 16
SV-2009-AR-14140 Page 10 of 13
3-26-09
square feet of sign area than the 80 square feet currently prescribed by the LDC. The
granting of the third Sign Variance would allow the proposed on-premise sign to have an
additional 8 feet of height than the 15 feet of height prescribed by the LDC. The granting
of the forth Sign Variance request would allow for an additional wall sign at the Red Roof
Inn_ Each of these sign variances confers special privilege on the applicant that are not
permitted by right to similarly situated property owners.
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?
Section 5_06.01.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 marmer that does not
endanger public safety or unduly distract motorists;
3. Appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain;
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 satisty the needs
for regulation;
5. Reflective of the identity and creativity of the individual occupants.
In staffs opinion, the request to replace a wall sign and an additional wall sign advances
these objectives. However, the request to replace a larger than code prescribed pole sign,
does not. Therefore, approval of the Variance number J and 4 would be consistent with the
purpose and intent of the LDC_ Approval of Variance number 2 and 3 would not, as the
on-premise sign can meet the code prescribed size.
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.?
Yes and No. As illustrated on the Site Plan on page three, travelers must enter through the
!HOP site before arriving at the Red Roof Inn building which is on an interconnected site
with three other buildings. Consequently, the Red Roof Inn must rely on the additional
wall signs for patrons to easily navigate the site_ The on-premises sign (Sign C) is visible
from Davis Boulevard and will continue to be visible from Davis Boulevard when
redeveloped to the current Land Development Code standards without the need for a
variance.
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
SV-2009-AR-14140 Page 11 of 13
3-26-09
this one.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for SV-2009-AR-14140, revised
March 26, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County PI arming Commission (CCPC) forward Petition SV-
2009-AR-14140, Red Rooflnn to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation
of approval for the first variance and the fourth variance (the wall sign and the separation
distance, as identified on page 8 of this staff report) and for denial of the second variance and the
third variance (the off~premise sign height and area). Thus, the on-premise sign (Sign C) will not
exceed the current Code requirements for size (shall be limited to an area of 80 square feet and a
height of 15 feet). Staffs recornn1endation is also subject to the following condition:
I. The existing directional sign (Sign E shown on the site plan on page 3) for the Red Roof
Inn located at the eastern entrance on Davis Boulevard shall be removed.
SV-2009-AR-14140
3-26-09
Page 12 of 13
PREPARED BY:
L CH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
N OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
./],
~ '-1Vl, \S~
A"USAN M_ ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
10 E H K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR
C MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
S VICES DIVISION
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
3- 2-5-0~
DATE
Ii/to /09
DATE
i;;3~ f7'J
( ATE
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the June 9, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting.
SV-2009-AR-14140
Page 11 of 11
RESOLUTION 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER SV-2009-AR-14140, GRANTING FOUR (4) SIGN
VARIANCES; VARIANCE ONE IS FROM LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE SUBSECTION 5.06.04.C.l TO ALLOW
AN ON-PREMISES SIGN LOCATED LESS THAN 1,000 FEET
FROM ANOTHER SIGN; THE SECOND VARIANCE IS FROM
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SUBSECTION 5.06.04.C.l.a TO
ALLOW A 23-FOOT lliGH ON-PREMISES SIGN; THE TlliRD
VARIANCE IS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
SUBSECTION 5.06.04.C.l.c TO ALLOW A SIGN AREA OF 96 :!o
FEET; AND THE FOURTH VARIANCE BEING FROM LDC
SUBSECTION 5.06.04.C.4, TO ALLOW A SECOND WALL SIGN;
ALL VARIANCES FOR THE RED ROOF INN, WHICH IS
LOCATED AT 1925 DAVIS BOULEVARD IN SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance No_ 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions ofthe County, among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner now owns and operates the property located at J 925 Davis
Boulevard in Collier County, Florida and seeks to alter the signage on the property; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have signs with Jess than 1,000 feet of separation for
on-premises signs; and
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner cannot have on-premises signs within 1,000
feet of each other pursuant to LDC Section 5.06.04_C.l; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have a sign of 23 feet in height feet; and
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner cannot have a sign in excess of 15 feet in
height, pursuant to LDC Section 5_06.04_C.l_a; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have a sign with an area of96 zsquare feet; and
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner cannot have a sign in excess of 80 square feet,
pursuant to LDC section 5.06.04.C.Lc; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have a second wall sign on a three story building; and
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner is entitled to only one wall sign on its
building; pursuant to 5.06.04.C.4; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board) has held a public hearing with due
If
notice made, and has considered the advisability of granting these variances; and
WHEREAS, the Board has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by the Land
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby approves four variances from LDC
Sections 5.06.04.C.I, 5.06.04.C.La, 5.06.04.C.Lc and 5.0604.CA as requested in Petition SV-
2009-AR-14l40 fiJed by Brent Forte of Site Development Services, Inc., on behalf of the
Petitioner, Red Roof Inn, concerning the subject property at 1925 Davis Boulevard in Section 2,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number SV-
2009-AR-14l40 be recorded in the minutes of this Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and super-majority vote, this _ day of
,2009.
ATIEST:
By;
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
2
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams ,.,.-...,
Assistant County Attorney J.~V.O'\
Attachment: Exhibit A - Sign and Site Depictions
CPI09-CPS-00925\9
Rev. 3/24/09
3
~
s
...
-o:::t
"00
>T""
-o:::t
rD(O)
r--fI)
(0).- -oJ
C\I>u..
r-- <<S ~
~Cfl)
Lt)~
C\le.
el<<S
T""Z
(f)
~
W
()
<(
a:
z
o
(f)
a:
W
I:::
W
...J
f-
:J
W
()
it (f)
_ ...J
Coz<(
"Of--'
O-W
W!;;:O
~>z
Y"::l~
f:OW(f)
(f)a:a:
LLOOO
LLLL
.A'f-",,,
........ W WW
(f)(9('J
Z sit It
GWww
_ZWW
en ? U; U;
l::
Cl
rn
l:: <U
Cl l::
rn 0
+::
Ol ()
l:: Ql
'-
'0 0
l::
<U Z
.... Z
III
Ql -
Ql 0
'-
u.. 0
a. D::
00 Woo
l::J: l:: Ql
OlD::
Ol en
rn
(f)
a:
W
f-
f-
W
...J
f-
::J
o (f)
...J
f-z<c
::J0f--'
U_w
f-!;;:O
::5>z
LLW('J
-' -
~W(/)
No:o:
LLOO
OLLLL
rDf-lD<D
WWW
(f)('J(9
Z :;::-<( <(
-0.. a.
Gwww
_Zww
en ? U; U;
~ Z
DO
"-,
LL>-
00.
(f)LL
f--
wO
(f)('J
-z
N_
-f-
O~
~x
f-W
-0:
"O(f)
(f)LLZ
W(f)o
Uo:_
itw!;;:
f-I:::>(f)
-WW-l
u,-I-l<(
O-,Wf--'
a:wzw
f-ZOO
WZ...JZ
0:<(>-(9
" ID...-
"1'0 a: ID
Coooo:
xwu...Q
= -.J r--. LL
O:1'W(f) co
"-oww
~<((9(9
Z~~1t1t
GOwww
<::a.WW
Cii~o~~
a
.e
.cc.=
.j.:!CllC
c.~=
=1;;;.-
C==
~
@
~
8
@.
U)
z
CI
(ii
Z
~
it
ill
:>
<(
~
a
z
~
g
Z
ill
m
~
"-
I-
Z
ill
CI
ill
lL
lL
o
ill
CI
<(
~
I
?-
m
~
ill
:>
ill
CI
:J
&
:>
9
ill
u:
00
'+-
o
r-
(l)
0>
ro
0..
<(
f0-
al
I
X
W
~
W
I-
a
z
o
?:
U)
z
CI
(ii
z
~
it
ill
:>
<(
~
a
z
~
CI
it
~
a
()
co 0
Ll.. 0
0 0
l!l
N ~
'"
S:...J 5"
0
~
SLl.._ rJJ
- "' z
\..L--6. Cl
iii
Q~ Z
~I <(
0
r-- ii'
J~ ill
:;
<(
I
f-
0:
Z 0
g Z
~ i;:
., F
~ 0
-~ Z
-
ill
rJJ
~
.J
~
f-
Z
ill
0:
ill
CO LL
LL
..... is
0 ill
N 0:
<(
Q) 1
en
ro I
f-
D... rJJ
f-
Z
<( ill
:;
I- ill
0:
CO :J
rJJ
I ~
>< :;
ill 0
.J
ill
(~ iL
>-
z
<(
W
f-
Z ro 0
Z
-0: Ll.. 0
a: Ll.. N
0 ::> N 0
:2' I N ~
Z W rJJ
I <3 Ll.. Z
0 Z rJl (')
--, -0: a: iii
J) z
~ <(
<( ~ ~ 0
~ ii'
'f: CL -0:: ill
:;
I: <(
CCI I
c.:l f-
.co- o:
.pCoCll 0
CoCCI: z
Q Eo!2l f-
I
I:CC1C1l (')
~ ii'
>-
"-
0
U
ro ~
LL
..: 0 "'
u.. '" !
<( 0-
(J) ~
Z II> ~-'
~
CJ cO SLL(fJ
- 0 _ u) z
en ~ \..L.. ~ ~
a. (fJ
() '" Z
()Z~
Cill Q
t-- a:
~'" w
~ ~
Q{~ I
f-
a:
Z 0
Z
0 ~
~
u 5
0
z ~ z
0 w
~ (fJ
~
w n.
-'
w f-
I- Z
W
VI a:
w w
;: tL
co tL
Cl is
w 4-
VI 0 W
0 C<) ~
<l-
Oen <( Q) ~
a:f--- c:: OJ
<l-Z
Cl ro f-
(i5 n.. ~
..: w
LL <( :<
I- w
0- a:
(J) :J
N OJ (fJ
~ I ~
II> >< :<
C') 9
N W
W
[
~
Iii
f-
0
Z ro Z
..:: LL q
a: LL N I.i
0 :::> C'!
:;;: :r: N f:
~
Z w (fJ
:r: 19 LL Z
0 Z en C)
--, ..:: a: Iii
z Vi z
0 w "-' ~
~ :;;!
~ <( '" it
Vl Cl. <( w
:<
w c: ~
-'
w = ~
I- ~ a:
VI ,c.- 0
w fC.= z
;;::: =c:
C;l ClE,~ ~
z c:== C)
f= ~ ~
~en
Xf--- 0
WZ 0
<t
z
C)
-
(J)
0..
0:
()
;;;
a:
f--
w
()
it
o
a:
>-
()
o
w
a:
9
ro
'-
N
~
()
r;;
;;;
=>
z
~
=>
~
0:
z
~ a: a:
0 w =>
w Z t;;
~ w
0 ':; to a:
w 0.. it ;;;
a: 0.. =>
'" => w Z
Z '" --' ~
0 '" ~
a: "" ~ =>
~ w 0: --'
Z So 5 So <(
0: 0 '"
9 0..
'"
~
r
f-
L
,,{
~.
r
~
t ~t--- - ,8v .
- __,,2/~ vt-
---- - -..% ~-.Gl
...
,~
I
....
--'
~
W
o
c:
W~
~~
~ II
-'~
W-
Z .-
Z~
<(<C
IO
O(/)
II . -d {__H_
u_-\1--;-, 6~ ..'Ie ~G
"Ie
--.'/,9-vl--
=>
c:
I
f-
Z
o
i=
UUJ
Wf-
f/)Z
m
~
OJ
o
"-'
LL
o
(/)
...J
;::
o
f-
UJ
W
::J
a.
f- a..
Z ::>
00 (/)
C:f- 0:
LLO W
Ww 5:
O:f- Of-
Oz a.W
f--
met. 2m
0, ~ a:
f-UJf-f-o
O>-ZZ_
<COOO:
i:':!5:0:0W
ZWLLO~
:J()~r-W
~~_ OUJ;;
"'_f-~w
U)r--U) J-
C:XI5:U)
W"'OW::J
1-1'--1-0
f-z<(<c--,
~02r;:?
Ch
c:
W (/)
~ ~
W ::>
--' f-
--' W
W 0:
Zw ~
Zo 0
~~ Sa.. 8,
U 0 [!) <C ._
f-W WO(/)
:Ja:: r-"",=
Cl f-",
WZUJU)~rr
UOW~ f-
Lt...J902W
Z~<C::>f-
Co<(LLr1lZ:::J
"'002~!!!
LL.Ja:::J >
Q(J)(:;z3w
li:i~o~~~
U)I-W::>oo
::JO:;:;!~S
;:"W9(")~m
~OroCD_ "
zLt8Jq~:-
0,. . .
@C1
.......
=.~
OJ
LL
o
.".
8
i
~--'~
~ LL Ul
~ n Z
... ~ ~
~a.iii
()~~
t:f:} I ~
r-- a:
~ KJ ~
&~ ~
a:
a
z
~
i=
a
z
w
Ul
~
[L
I-
Z
w
a:
w
"-
"-
co is
w
a:
<(
~
~
w
:<
w
a:
:J
~
:<
o
.J
W
u:
-~
z
o
~
u
o
--'
<(
4-
o
"<t
Q)
OJ
ro
0...
<(
f-
ro
I
><
W
W
I-
a
OJ z
ZLLC! I
<{ LL C\J .
0: ::> '" 0
o I N ~
L ill ~ U)
z <.9 LL Z
I Z UJ (9
~ <( a:: W
z
if) <(
w ~ g
--l ~ D:: ([
~ D... <::( W
I C - ~
~ ~
"c'e: Cf.l a
.j.:l=c z
5E,~ ~
C=.... _
~~
-
aJ
Z
C}
-
en
w
:z:
I-
::>
o
en
o
w
en
o
a.
OCf)
a: I-
a.z
z
o
!i
>
W
...I
W
:z:
I-
::>
o
en
Cl
z
i=
enCf)
-I-
[;JZ
-
LL
a-
m
"'
"':
'"
'"
'e.[/~'tss.
~ 1( "'~l
.i:AO-.9
u:
a-
m
o
"'"
C')
~
"
~
~~=
~~=
:-~-
.,.
N
"~ ~ -.9
!D
r::
0')
en
a)
L.l..
o
'"
8
~
~...I~
$L.l.. <fJ
_ (J)- Z
I. 2 Q
-"0. <fJ
~~~
^~ I Q
\..K: .... It
~ g] ~
.... <{
~~ ~
It
o
Z
~
b
z
W
<fJ
~
(L
~
W
It
W
LL
LL
ex:> is
w
~
~
~
~
z
w
:;
W
It
:J
<fJ
~
:;
o
.J
W
ii:
z
o
~
u
o
-'
-
o
lO
Q)
OJ
co
(l.
<(
f-
aJ
I
X
W
L
~
w
b
Z a) Z
c{li..C!,
a: u.. (\J .
o ::> "! 0
::;: I ~;;
z ~ r (f)
I C') L.l.. Z
o z Cf) CJ
--:> <( a:: 1i.i
<ii Z
w .: ,.:...: 5
~ ~ 0=: a:
(/) n.. c::( W
:;
<{
~
o
Z
\:
CJ
ii'
~
o
u
c:
Cll
~
.c:'e::~
~=c:
J:.~=
0\;;,_
C:Cll~
~
I'D
Z
~
-
(J)
r
!i: ~
w Ui
w Ow
~ a: 0::0::
I- ill a:w
~ ~ 8m
0.. zl-
?D U) 0(1)
M N ziE.
w
w
S
co
X
w
~
~
o
u
~
"r
~
N
"'--
in
in
'\'
Cry
1
----,,'1[0-,9 --
II
il
..J9
=i~
lu 'I
o ~N
-'
a: ..
WW
I-..J
1-4:
wo
..J(f)
CD
""
'"
'"
f--'
LL
o
(f)
..J
~
o
I-
---'
..J
~
Cf)LL
a:LL
wO
I-~
1-'"
wo
..Jw
01-
UZ
LL=>
~ 0
~~(J)
LLW(I)
om:':S
1-0(')
wl--
Cf)(I)X
a:~
~Wo..
wl=o
zwo
Q7t;-
~
~
~
I
,
z
o
j:::
()
w
Cf)
Cf)
Cf)
0(1)
a: I-
OZ
[Il
c::
.~
en
<0
LL
o
<0
:3
i
~..J~
$LL<fJ
__ en Z
~~Cl
() g- Ui
~~ ~
~~ ~
&~ ~
II:
o
Z
~
5
z
w
~
[L
~
W
II:
W
LL
co LL
o
W
II:
<(
~
<fJ
~
W
:;
W
II:
:J
<fJ
~
:;
9
w
[
z
o
~
'-'
o
---'
4-
o
<D
(1)
Ol
ro
0...
<(
I-
al
I
><
W
~
W
Of--
Z CD
~ttqZ
N
o => "! 0
:;: I N Z
z !:!:! ""; W
I (') LL Z
OZ(I)O
....., ~ IT: W
:;] Z
-1 ~ 5
~ ~ 0.:: ((
a. 4: w
:;
<(
~
o
Z
~
o
~~
c:
ell
.c,e
~c.CQ
c.CI:IC:
oE,SP
C:CllCQ
0) @
"-
..; 0 '"
"- r--- ~
U 0-
en 0
Z co ~...J 0
.,; !!l.
C} CO> $"-. rJJ
- -'" z
en ~-6- C)
iii
OZ! z
~I q:
\J
r--- ii:
J~ LIJ
:;
q:
~
a:
Z a
z
0 ~
~
u b
0
~ Z
LIJ
rJJ
~
a.
Z ~
0 LIJ
...J a:
>- LIJ
ll.. "-
<Xl "-
a is
w 4-
en (J 0 LIJ
0 a:
a. c: r---- q:
O(/J OJ Q) ~
CCf- en en
a.z m
0.. ~
u: LIJ
<( :;
0- LIJ
f- a:
(/J ::J
co OJ ~
.,; I
CO> :;
><
w 9
LIJ
L IT:
~
z
o
...J
>-
a.
Cl
Z
i=
~(/J
Xf-
WZ
W
f-
a
Z 0) Z
~ "- 0
-.... LL N
cc ::> N ti
~ I oJ ~
Z W (f)
I a "- z
OZ(/JC)
"""') <( a:: U5
Vi z
W r:-: d
~ :2 cr: oc
(f) n.. <:::( w
:;
c: q:
~ ~
.c'- a:
,..c.a.l a
....=c: z
5E,~ ~
C:=a.l C)
~~
()
:z
" '" CJ
- lr Z
(j) W W a;
w n. S :J
<.) Ci' f-
il: f- --' W
'" --' f-
f- f- W Ci' '"
f- W Z z "i lr
W Z W Z w
Z a; <.) <( x if) z
a; <( <.) I w w w
<( <.) <( <.) --' :J f-
u.. n. if)
<.) " w w Z n. il:
CJ :J <.) <.) <( :J
Z z il: il: 0 if) <.) w
f= ~ --' lr Ci' --'
if) Z Z if) W f- ro
X :J w w 0 " <.) '"
--' n. n. w
w <( 0 0 W 0 --' 5
lr n. w if)
en ::>
t= a:
J:
I--
Z
0
i=
i:= O(J)
WI--
en rJlZ
IT-~
~ ~
Co r:o
lL
...J
~
W
00
We>
O~
it II
I-- 0
_'""
u..-
.~
0-'
a:~
1-<(
Wl)
a:(J)
. 'Ie LS -JL ..Ot> ~.~
. "7-8 ..8/99
11/10, -
--..8/L G-m -- ~----
----..9-.ll
o Z
f- ""
o 0
w u... !---
_ I _~ 0 (J)W
C\Iu)O S:::'~ 0 wW
-a:<t: 02 0: -
Owl= -- U...J
~~<t: ~~w ~ It&
f-wUJ r-.JI 9= l-=>
-...JW l.LJ<{1- Z wU)
~....JO ~OO - ZO:
(J)W<:( Owt-- w-iIjW
w tL GIO I-Z<:($:
UZ~ ;C:oow o:~OO
~O:::(=> 0ZdJ i:f?Z=>G...
IZ Cl)i:i:1- X-a:>
!:::U~ a:uJ{f)U)wWI~
U,O:::J wa:<(W...J1D1-
QW-.I J-a...LLOLL=>O~
a:...J<((f.)I-o=c6o;(Zl--W--.J
t- ow~~wu..c:(~~=>
WUwO---JO(!)1--0c;i$:O
~ ~ a: it: w ,. wO ~ u:: ~ (/} S?
..,. Ol-ZU) -OW-,.,::
_' Z w W Z Z w ~ LU I Z Z
~~V5~~a:ooa:~Q<:(
= OZCIlO=>i1:0WO~g
c:?ou::c5wtuI-W~i=ZU)
......-.:t. Oa:o::t:It-cn:;;;:::o
or- wC}<{WO~ >-=w
N~g:~LLt::W~~w3U)
_ =I-ZI:2:LL((}~-.lO
O(J)O~WS:2u'J=>U-d
~lu:g[;Soa..= wo:oOIfilz
I- en.' . ~ I [L 0" ~ ill
ro 8
u..
0 ~
ro ~
~..J g-
el-
$": (/)
_if) Z
\.L...-6. C)
0'" ii5
~~ z
<:
()
r-- ii'
J~ UJ
:;
<:
~
a:
z 0
0 Z
~ ~
u r:
0
~ 0
Z
UJ
(/)
~
.J
11.
f-
Z
UJ
a:
UJ
"-
co "-
"- is
0 w
co a:
<:
UJ ~
t) Ol I
c:: CO f-
.2l 0... (/)
f-
(J) Z
<( UJ
:;
f- UJ
a:
CO ::J
(/)
I ~
>< :;
W 0
.J
UJ
Ii:
-~
W
f-
Z ro 0
<( u.. 0 Z
IT: u.. N
0 ~ N 0
2' I N ;;;
Z W (/)
:r (') u.. Z
0 Z (J) C)
--, <( IT: ii5
Vi z
w ~
~ :2' e-:
<( '" ii'
Vl a. <( UJ
l: :;
<:
= ~
~
,c.- a:
.j.:lc.~ 0
c.=C z
cE.5l'l \:
@Q C=~ G
...W ~ ~
=~~ 11.
0
()
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
Co~r County
~ -.........-- ~
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING: MAY 7, 2009
SUBJECT: CU-2008-AR-13245, RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner:
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Collier County Solid Waste Management
Daniel R. Rodriguez, Director
3301 East Tamiami Trail, Bldg H
Naples, FL 34112
Agents:
David E. Deans, P.E., BCEE
PBS&J
482 Keller Road
Orlando, FL 32810
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a
Conditional Use (CU) within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North Belle
Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) District Overlay for Sending Areas to
allow 1) a "Collection and Transfer Site for Resource Recovery," pursuant to Collier County
Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.12; and 2) "Public Facilities, including
Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and
Repair Facilities" pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) of the RFMU District for a
project to be known as the Resource Recovery Park.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
As depicted on the conceptual site plan, the proposed Resource Recovery Park is located
adjacent to the Collier County Landfill site. The subject property, consisting of approximately
341 acres, is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR (951) and one mile
north of White Lake Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. (See location map on the following page)
GU-200B--AR-13245 Page 1 of 13
Revised 4/15109
..,
.
~ z
0
~ a w-
!::~
, ",0 .
0 .
l ~ > ~
a..
0( i ~ <(
g ~
i
! "
i Z
-
s Z
!
> l 0
RH N
,
!
.
.
.
. ~
. I
o'
, ~
. .
I
)"l\Q5(lLiOM "L- 5
'"
z
0
...
...
III
..
,
~ 0 " . "
o-z
00 a..
w-
,!;o
00 i <(
~ , "'0 i
5:. ~~
". ...~: ~ ~ i ~
...~~ . ~ . "
- ~
. a !
; z
, , 1- 0
, 5.. ,~ -
'. I-
- , .- . . ~! ,
- ~I ~ a~ i
. <(
l ;
()
, , 0
, I , -I
, ,
:. '" " ~i
:: ~~ ' . " ~~ . =
.' <!i!' - i; IS
i , a
; 1 .
..
i~ -- .~
, !~ !
5 ~ ~l ~! i.
0' , " - '"0
-;i , ji If .
a . . i
a . R
N<
O~
Zo
m~
Oz
~-<
u~
~I
() d!
o ~[l
~ HI'
NO
~~ if I
~:;!
~ i
~11'
F
r
i
~
~
.
-~!
"0.
'~i
'.
.
.
:
I
,
"lril
H[i
ili[
,
t $iW l't; l'!; In; ~i't" H f~ .~.
li!l!' Jf" iH '" ~i! ~ 'i .~ h~
I "~lf .tl iil Hi! ~l~f h,t~ m
l_l I.t '~~ 'IS! !t~i !,Ii to.
lt~j 1[~ l~ "l~ J}J~ ti:i~ !!~
"Iu phi ~ ItH 1, Ih
! ii .~ i~ II~ ~ fO l.~~ .~-
'~~i l~ ~p _(' =," ;!fE II
Nl' . .' ," ,_ ~ i
o ~ ~ -
z
m
o
~
o
Im~~
.>
-~!
~!l
Q
~m~
z-l~
I m>z
9filG'J
, m"'~
I -<
II m
I! MAIN GOlDEN Go\TE CANAl
11
. 11
1" 11
m~ I 11
If 1
I 1
~~" I 11
1
1
1
11
I 1
1
II 1
If 1
11
I 1
~ 1
1
II. 1
11
11
.; 11
11
11
11
1
1
1
I
I
I"
Ii
.
~~
;i!~
~l:..~
~S!
.~
,,'
'I"
,n
...
'Ii
~
L::J
l
!
I
~E~o
moillS
~~"
,
"
-!~
;;l!:..
~!'
0>1
!a
"
;U
m
Ol
~
m
)>
~
s;~8
~~2
O~
II
i~.N
~r!!ii
Fr,!o
-~l i
I
~
8
z
m
~
m
x
:I:
a;
=<
PBSJ SJDO West Cyprtlu Str~..1 5<Jite 200
Tampa, Florida 33607
r~_ (813) 282-721~
F(J~. (813) 286-1207
hHp://ww,,_pb!Jjcam
Conceptual Site Plan
Resource Recovery Park
Solid Was'ht Management Department
,
i
I
"
~ OJ. JD m
0
. 0
oro, ~
. s a~~
e . ~mm
Q ~~~!~
t
~ ~~I~;
, >' ,.
> 0~~-~
0
d~"!i f'
~~a ~
- .
~~
z>
~:
.0
[;$
>
0
.
!
I
I
"
Nm
00
ZC
m-<
~8
,r
o~
CO
r
C
~
8
z
m
~
liE ------
~(~
SEenoN "-m-_..s..""",, ""t
March 11, 2008
Revised December 22,
2008
~
o
"
-.
~-
-
NOli ":'11
8
-I
i
I
I
@' ..,
.~
~
"
PBSJ
.5.JOO lllr.rt C)prfts StrNt sun. 200
romp<7. n<IridQ :13$07
:':;.. (~tJ) ~~--71Jj7
http://.......pb.j.co<n
COLLIER COUNTY
__ Recovwy ...rk
AerIal
FIGURE 2
su;_zs.~..s._~~
Oec8mber 22, 2008
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner has stated that the landfill operation itself will not be expanded into the subject
tract; however the Conditional Uses being sought would allow some of the non-landfill
operations or those operations that are accessory to the actual land-filling operation. The
proposed operations include areas set aside for yard waste and storm debris processing (72
acres), Construction and Debris processing (14 acres), a recycled material processing facility (14
acres), a household hazardous waste facility (5 acres), an administration and equipment
maintenance facility (9 acres), and tire processing (3 acres) and white goods (old appliances)
processing (3 acres). These items are not necessarily buried in the landfill; they are separated
and removed from the site for further processing.
The Resource Recovery Park is located on vacant, county-owned property. It is generally
situated one mile east of Collier Boulevard and one mile north of White Lake BoulevardlI-75.
Primary vehicular access will be via an interconnection with an existing north-south service road
through the landfill site onto White Lake Boulevard. Future accesses are planned from the south
via northward road extensions along the western and eastern landfill property lines, and by
bridging over the canal to the west providing for an emergency and administration access road
across from 31st Avenue SW.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: (Please see attached the applicant's exhibit
entitled Figure 2, Collier County Resource Recovery Park Aerial for a pictorial rendering of the
adjacent uses.)
North:
Hideout Golf Course and several large tracts with single-family homes, with a
zoning designation of Rural Agricultural (A)
East:
scattered single-family homes and vacant tracts along Garland Road, with a zoning
designation of Rural Agricultural (A)
South:
Collier County Landfill on 31 H acres and a 30H acre undeveloped tract, both with
a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural (A)
West:
a canal then scattered single-family homes with a zoning designation of Estates (E)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated as AgriculturaVRural,
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) - Sending Lands, on the Future Land Use Map of
the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The RFMUD generally provides a transition between the
Urban and Estates designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and
Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The RFMUD employs a balanced approach to
protect natural resources and private property rights and provides for large areas of open space.
The RFMUD allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 2 of 13
The Sending Lands have been identified as being least appropriate for development within the
RFMUD. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a greater degree of
environmental or listed species habitat value than Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands and
generally have avoided being disturbed through previous development or agricultural operations.
The RFMUD allows for resource recovery activities within Sending Lands, stating,
Public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facilities, and public vehicle and
equipment storage and repair facilities, shall be permitted within Section 25, Township 49S,
Range 26E, on lands adjacent to the existing County landfill. This shall not be interpreted to
allow for the expansion of the landfill into Section 25 for the purpose of solid waste disposal.
In application materials, the petitioner explains, "Single stream recycled material collection
centers will collect glass, cans, paper, plastics and other materials in an unsorted single stream of
materials to be recycled. Once collected, these materials would be brought to a central
processing center, such as the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) proposed for the Resource
Recovery Park where they would be sorted, processed and packaged for shipping to a secondary
materials market where they would be reused."
Staff points out this Resource Recovery Park proposal seems less like a typical resource recovery
facility, and more like a collection-and-transfer site, as collected materials will go through
sorting, processing and packaging operations here before being shipped to secondary markets.
No incineration facilities are proposed to convert any materials to energy, The proposal does,
however include a facility for converting the adjacent landfill's methane gases to energy - which
simply flames-off currently. Nonetheless, the proposed uses are without question, "public
facilities",
RFMUD Sending Lands provision C) 10 requires that native vegetation be preserved as set forth
in Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.2., which requires 80
percent of the native vegetation present to be preserved. This issue is discussed later in this
report.
Consideration of the Collier County Resource Recovery Park also extends to other elements of
the GMP, including the Capital Improvement Element (CIE), Economic Element, and Solid
Waste Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element.
Landfill related resource recovery activities are supported by the provIsIons of the CIE,
particularly how the project is programmed into the Five-Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements. The CIE identified the present proposal in previous years' Five-Year Schedules
of Capital Improvements. Moneys were accumulated in previous fiscal years toward this project
with the actual project completion date reaching into 2009. To this extent, the proposed
Resource Recovery Park is consistent with the CIE. However, staff notes the present CIE does
not include this project in the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 3 of 13
Recycling programs protecting natural resources, conserving energy, prolonging the useful life
of landfills and maintaining a positive public image are supported by Policy 1.6 of the Economic
Element. This Element also encourages the preservation of sensitive natural resources by Policy
1.8. This proposal adheres to these policies by establishing the resource recovery facilities on
approximately one-half the 341 acre subject property - while the other half is to remain
undeveloped and improved by removal of exotics.
Numerous Policies in the Solid Waste Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element instruct
Collier County to evaluate full-service recycling centers, develop means to divert solid waste
from the landfill, explore emerging conversion technologies, and maintain leachate and gas
management systems in compliance with its (landfill) permit. The proposed Resource Recovery
Park is consistent with the provisions of the Solid Waste Sub-Element.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Conditional Use may be deemed
consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) ofthe Growth Management Plan,
Transportation Element (TE): Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and has
determined that the proposed Conditional Use does not significantly impact the adjacent roadway
network. As such, the roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project
within the 5-year planning period, and staff recommends that this project be found consistent
with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation Element ofthe Growth Management Plan (GMP).
CR-951 Impacts: Additional traffic impacts are found to be present in the proposed Conditional
Use. The project proposes a peak direction impact of 3 trips during the PM Peak hour on link
32.2, Collier Boulevard from 1-75 to Golden Gate Parkway. This represents a 0.001 percent
impact on this concurrency link, which is listed by the 2008 AUIR to have a remaining capacity
of 449 trips and is currently at level of service "D".
Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): The Collier County Resource
Recovery Park (CCRRP) project has been found consistent with all applicable sections of the
Growth Management Plan, including the following objectives and policies. Please refer to the
Environmental Impact Statement for further detail.
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management
Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all
applicable federal. state, or local water quality standards,
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of
stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water
does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and
quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or
enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry and wet
detention areas and a wetland(s) to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation
during storm events,
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 4 of 13
Objective 6,1 The County shall protect native vegetative communities through the application of
minimum preservation requirements.
Policy 6,1.2 For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, native vegetation shall be
preserved on site through the application of preservation and vegetation retention standards and
criteria.
Policy 6,1,6 allows exemptions from the native preservation retention requirements of CCME
policy 6.1,2 on County owned land located in Section 25, Township 26E, Range 49S. ifpermitted
uses are restricted to the portions of the property that are contiguous to the existing land fill
operations: exotic removal will be required on the entire site.
Policy 6,1.2 and requires 80 percent preservation of native habitat outside the Natural Resources
Protection Area (NRP A) sending lands. Under the current GMP all of Section 25 is currently
zoned A or Rural Agricultural within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District Overlay for Sending Areas. Sending areas by definition include significant wetlands,
uplands, and habitat for protected species and have been determined to have the highest degree
of environmental value and sensitivity. The land preservation requirement is reduced where
lands contiguous to the Collier County Landfill are to be developed pursuant to CCME Policy
6.1.6 is specific to this site and states "On the County owned land located in Section 25,
Township 26E, Range 49S, [sic](+/- 360 acres) the native vegetation retention and site
preservation requirements may be reduced to 50 percent if the permitted uses are restricted to the
portions of the property that are contiguous to the existing land fill operations; exotic removal
will be required on the entire +/- 360 acres." The proposed development will require the
preservation of 50 percent of the native vegetation on site, The Conceptual Site Plan adheres to
this requirement to preserve native vegetation and the site preservation requirements will be met
as follows:
Total project area = 341 acres. 341 acres X 0.50 (50 percent preservation) = 170.5
acres of native vegetation preservation required. Proposed total acres of on-site native
vegetation to be preserved = 170.8 acres
Policy 6,1.4 Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation shall be removed from all new developments,
All invasive exotic vegetation will be removed from the project site during the development
process and the entire site shall be kept free of exotic vegetation in perpetuity.
Policy 6.1.7 The County shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into landscape
designs in order to promote the preservation of native plant communities and to encourage water
conservation. The final site plan landscape design will include the required preservation of
native plan communities, supplementary planting of drought tolerant native vegetation, and the
inclusion of littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds.
Policy 6.1,8 An Environmenta/1mpact Statement (E1S) is required to evaluate the impact of a
proposed development. This EIS is being submitted to fulfill the requirements of the GMP and
LDC.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 5 of 13
Objective 6.2 The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of
wetlands pursuant to the appropriate policies under Goal 6. Policy 6.2.1 Wetlands shall be
verified by jurisdictional field delineation.
A copy of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) specific purpose Formal
Wetland Delineation Survey, the FDEP letter documenting the field verification of the wetland
boundary, and email communication with the FDEP which denotes informal approval of the
wetland boundary have also been included with the survey (Figure 10 of EIS).
Policy 6.2.3 Collier County shall implement a comprehensive process to ensure wetlands and the
natural functions of wetlands are protected and conserved. The process outlined within this
policy is primarily based on directing concentrated population growth and intensive
development away from large interconnected wetland systems.
The project site has been affected by surrounding development and the on-site wetlands have
been effectively isolated by road construction and utility easement improvements. Natural
hydrologic patterns have been altered by the construction of the Golden Gate Canal, adjacent
development, and private roadways. The project will adhere to all applicable State, Federal, and
local wetland regulations. Wetland impacts have been limited to lower quality wetlands with
impaired functions. Mitigation will be provided to ensure that the project will not result in a net
loss of wetland function. The development and associated stormwater management plan will
improve the hydrology of the site's existing wetlands and restore the habitat value of
approximately 67 acres of project site uplands through the removal and continued maintenance
of exotic vegetation.
Policy 6.2.5: Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. and that portion of the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System which is contained within the lmmokalee Urban Designated
Area, Collier County shall direct land uses away from higher fUnctioning wetlands by limiting
direct impacts within wetlands based upon the vegetation requirements of Policy 6.1,2 of this
element, the wetland functionality assessment described in paragraph (2) below, and the final
permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District,
GMP Policy 6.2.5. (6) states, "Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetlands in order
to result in no net loss of wetland functions," In addition, the policy states, "No net loss of
wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional score of the proposed mitigation
equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the impacted wetlands. However, in no case
shall the acreage proposed for mitigation be less than the acreage being impacted."
The Solid Waste Department (SWD) has stated in the EIS that they will "adhere to the policy of
'No net loss of wetland functions' through the use of appropriate mitigation." Onsite
preservation will not be considered as mitigation. Proposed wetland impacts total 39 acres and
will be mitigated for offsite, Currently a mitigation plan has not been finalized for this project.
The mitigation plan will be finalized during the development and permitting phase of the project.
Policy 6.2.6 Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, required preservation areas, buffer
areas, and mitigation areas shall be dedicated as conservation and common areas in the form
of conservation easements and shall be identified or platted as separate tracts. All preservation
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 6 of 13
and mitigation areas will be placed under conservation easements dedicated to the appropriate
state and federal agencies as required by their respective permits.
Objective 7.1 The County shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species
and their habitat. Protected species surveys have been conducted on the site. Only the bald
eagle was observed on the site. No eagle nests were observed on site. Eagles have been
observed flying overhead and scavenging within the adjacent landfill. Please refer to listed
species details in the EAC staff report, item B. 4.
Policy 7.1.4 All development shall comply with applicable Federal and state permitting
requirements regarding listed species protection During the permitting process the project will
additionally comply with all applicable Federal and state permitting requirements regarding
listed species protection.
Stormwater Management: This northern portion of this site lies partially within the Main
Golden Gate Canal Basin and the southern portion lies within the Henderson Creek basin. Both
basins have allowable discharge rates of 0.15 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre. This project
has not yet been submitted to SFWMD for permitting because of the conceptual nature of the
design prior to the Conditional Use, but the petitioner realizes that a SFWMD permit must be
obtained.
Section 8.06.03 0.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water
management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the Environmental Advisory
Council (EAC) except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged
into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05,07."
The proposed storm water management system is designed to provide floodplain compensation
volume and water quality storage treatment in the proposed pond and attenuation by storage in
wetlands, so the water management aspects may be reviewed by the EAC.
The proposed water quality treatment volume is based on 150 percent of the one inch
requirement, which is the same as the present 1.5 inch requirement. Treatment is accomplished
in the wet detention area and recovery is accomplished by V notches in the control structure
sized not to exceed one-half inch of rainfall over the developed area in a 24 hour period.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the petition may be deemed consistent with the
overall GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Before any conditional use can be recommended to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the
Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) must make a finding that: 1) granting approval of
the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest; 2) all specific requirements for
the individual conditional use are met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning
the following matters, where applicable:
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 7 of 13
1. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan.
As noted above, this proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the FLUE, the
Transportation Element and the CCME Element; therefore the petition is consistent with the
overall GMP. With the conditions of approval included by staff, the proposal may also be
found consistent with all of the applicable provisions ofthe LDC.
2. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
and access in case of fire or catastrophe.
Transportation Planning staff indicates that they have reviewed this petition and determined
that there are no outstanding issues concerning vehicular access and traffic control. As
shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, vehicular access to the site would be afforded through
the existing land fill operation to the south. An emergency access is also proposed to the
west, to access 31st Avenue SW. That access will only be viable if a bridge is constructed
over the main Golden Gate Canal which separates the site from 3151 Avenue SW. The
proposed access through the existing landfill operation will help maintain traffic flow and
control, and help ensure visitor safety. In addition, the petitioner has indicated that fences,
signs and cameras will most likely be placed strategically in and around the subject site to
prevent uncontrolled pedestrian or vehicular access.
3. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to
noise, glare, economic or odor effects.
The proposed activities will be accessed through the existing landfill operation except for
emergency access points that may be developed in the future. As such, the traffic generated
from the Resource Recovery Park should not significantly impact any neighboring property
owners on a regular basis. In addition, the petitioner re-designed the site to address concerns
raised by the neighboring property owners during the Neighborhood Information Meeting
(NIM). The petitioner rearranged the water management areas and preserve areas to relocate
the proposed uses more internal to the site. The petitioner also included additional buffering
and increased the setback on the east side to 200 feet width. With the exception of the 2.57
acre outparcel, all outparcels are now surrounded by preserve areas, not active recycling uses.
In the petitioner's narrative statement, he characterizes the uses on site as follows:
The proposed uses are for the open and temporary storage of white goods, tire
processing, (Construction and Demolition) C&D recycling, yard waste and storm
debris piles which are all located in a central area of the site and not visible from
adjacent properties. The Dirty MRF (materials recovery from the solid waste stream).
Household Hazardous Waste Facility. Maintenance Building and Recycled Material
Processing Facility all occur within warehouse-type structures, The uses that they are
closest to are the industrial uses to the south which may all be housed in similar type
structures, The perimeter of the site will meet the required landscape buffers to
provide visual screening to the adjacent properties.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 8 of 13
As noted above, the more intense operations will take place indoors to reduce the noise, odor
or dust that the uses could create. Staff believes the subject site is a good location, as
identified in the GMP for the uses proposed, Additionally, the site already houses several
Collier County water well sites with others proposed on site, Those well sites require
considerable security and the security for those well sites can be incorporated into the
security required for the proposed uses, thus maximizing the county's resources (staff and
expense). Given the major relationship between the uses proposed and the existing landfill
operation, this site is the most appropriate location for this use. The petitioner has not
offered to limit the hours of operation, nor would such a limitation be appropriate because the
uses should be adequately buffered or housed to limit the impacts upon the neighboring
property owners,
With staffs additional conditions, staff is of the opmJOn the project will not generate
additional glare, noise or odors or otherwise create any adverse economic impacts on the
neighborhood.
4. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district.
As previously noted, the site is surrounded by agriculturally zoned lands on three sides and
estates zoned lands on the remaining boundary. To the east there are scattered single-family
homes and vacant tracts along Garland Road. To the west there is a canal then scattered
single-family home sites within the Estates zoning district. To the south is the existing
landfill, also zoned Agricultural. To the north are the Hideout golf course and several large
tracts developed with single-family homes.
At the NIM, several attendees expressed concern about possible flooding, Federal, state and
county regulations require the water management system to be designed to address flooding.
Precise engineering measurements must be made to determine this specific site's flooding
potential, and the water management system is designed to meet the needs of the site in
relationship to the surrounding area,
Within the overall tract boundaries for the subject site there are three parcels that are not
owned by the petitioner. Those tracts are not included in the CU petition; however staff has
included conditions to allow access for the tracts that would appear to be land-locked (see
boundary survey). It should be noted that the County is exploring the possibility of acquiring
these land-locked parcels in the future.
Staff believes that with the conditions imposed by staff and the limitations proposed by the
petitioner for increased setbacks and buffering, the project will be compatible with the
neighborhood. Additionally the petitioner will need to comply with all Federal, State and
other local regulations governing the uses. Staff believes that the proposed Conditional Use
may be deemed compatible with the neighboring properties subject to the inclusion of staffs
recommended conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition to
address any environmental concerns, The site was surveyed in August and September 2006;
January 2007, April 2008, and October 2008. Species surveys were conducted in accordance
with, Wildlife Methodolof!V Guidelines for Section 18D of the Application for Development.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 9 of 13
There were minimal observations of threatened and endangered wildlife. Tree cavity surveys for
Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) were conducted; neither RCWs nor tree cavities were
observed. Habitat on the site would not appear to support RCWs. However, this area has known
active RCW colonies in the vicinity and with proper management additional foraging will be
provided to this endangered species. An RCW management plan will be required to be
submitted and approved as part of the next development order. A condition to that effect was
included in the EAC staff report and it is carried over as a recommendation for the CCPC as
well.
The site encompasses approximately 341 acres and contains 144.4 acres of wetlands and 196.6
acres of uplands. The proposed development will require impacts to approximately 39 acres of
low quality wetlands and 131.2 acres of uplands. The Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) completed field inspection of the site on October 24, 2008. A copy of the
FDEP correspondence verifying the site wetland boundaries has been included in Subsection (c)
of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) along with a copy of the specific purpose Formal
Wetland Delineation Survey for the property. The developer will be required to provide offsite
mitigation for the 39-acre wetland impacts. A condition to that effect was included in the EAC
staff report and it is carried over as a recommendation for the CCPC as well. The petitioner was
required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) which was presented to the
Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) as noted below.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
This petition was heard by the EAC on April 1,2009 and they recommended approval by a vote
of7 to 1 (Mr. Penniman made the motion and Dr. Williams seconded the motion) subject to the
conditions of approval contained in the EAC staff report. The EAC further added the following
stipulation:
The developer shall submit the Site Development Plan (SDP) to the Environmental
Advisory Council for review and approval.
Mr. Bishoff cast the dissenting vote, stating that he could not support this petition because the
site plan showed the hazardous waste processing area too close to water wells.
A copy of the EAC staff report is included in the back up material. Please refer to that document
for environmental review details.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on September 4, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. at
Golden Gate Community Center. Thirty-three people from the public attended along with the
applicant's team and zoning staff members.
Mr. Rodriguez, Director of Collier County Solid Waste Department and the applicant, presented
an overview of the requested Conditional Use (CU). The CU is being requested to allow
development of a Resource Recovery Facility for the collection and transfer station. The site will
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 10 of 13
house some of the uses that are currently being done at the existing landfill site, e.g., yard waste
processinglcomposting, tire processing, recycle processing, etc. Mr. Rodriguez explained how
approval of this CU would allow those uses to move to this new facility thus extending the life of
the existing landfill site.
Of those who had questions or concerns, the Mr. Rodriguez responded as follows:
I. One of the main concerns from the participants was the increase in noise volume. The
participants stated that they felt that moving the heavy machinery closer to their property
lines would increase the noise they would hear, as they hear some noise now. Mr.
Rodriguez said he does not think the noise level will increase, the participants disagreed.
The participants also wanted to know how much of the machinery would be housed in a
closed building setting. Mr. Rodriguez commented that the recycling processing would be
located in a closed building setting (inside a building).
2. The second main concern was flooding, based upon surface water flow and heavy rains.
The participants claim that the site is currently underwater and any development of the
site would flood adjacent properties. Mr, Rodriguez stated that the storm water system
would be graded (designed) to flow on site to the retention ponds that will be constructed
on site and the retention ponds would be constructed to standards that should prevent
flooding pursuant to the (South Florida Water Management District) SFWMD criteria.
However the participants did not agree that the SFWMD criteria would adequately
prevent flooding, stating their contention that the water management areas shown on the
conceptual site plan were not large enough to prevent flooding on their properties.
3. The participants asked if a berm/buffer could be built on the east/northeast side of the
proposed location. Mr. Rodriguez said that they would consider that option when
designing the project in the Site Development Plan (SDP) process. [STAFF NOTE: The
petitioner revised the site plan to address this issue in the subsequent resubmittaL]
4. One participant asked what was going to be done to protect the protected wildlife
(Panthers, etc.) in the area, Mr, Rodriguez stated that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) had been prepared and submitted to the county and it was being reviewed now, but
in any case, environmental issues would be addressed specifically during the Site
Development Plan (SDP) and permitting processes and all those questions would be
addressed at that time,
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition CU-
08-AR-13245 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Resource Recovery Park shall be limited to that which is depicted on the conceptual
site plan, identified as the "Collier County Resource Recovery Park" dated March II, 2008
and last revised December 22,2008, prepared by PBS&J,
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 11 of 13
2. The site plan noted is conceptual in nature for Conditional Use approval. The final design
must be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations.
3. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Director may approve minor
changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements
authorized by this conditional use, so long as these minor changes remain consistent with
all applicable development standards.
4. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this Conditional Use approval, or major
changes to the approved plan, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use
application, and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of
submittal, including Chapter 10.02.03, of the Collier County Land Development Code,
Ordinance 04-41, as amended, for Site Development Plan (SDP) review and approval.
5. If it is judicially determined or otherwise agreed to by the County, then the County shall
provide access to the outparcels identified on the Boundary Survey as #40, #41, and #42
(all of which are located within the easternmost tract identified on the site plan as "Out
Parcel 10.20 Ac Zoned-A"). Said access shall be to Garland Road or other public or
private road. Preserve area calculations shall not be affect by such access.
6. The "Emergency and Administration Access Road" shown on the site plan shall be to a
declared emergency events only.
7. The 39 acres of off-site mitigation shall be identified prior to Site Development Plan
approval.
8. An RCW management plan will be required to be submitted and approved as part of the
next development order.
9. The developer shall submit the Site Development Plan to the EAC for review and approval.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 12 of 13
PREPARED BY:
Jj~ 3-30-09
KA DE LEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
4--6-0'1
D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
MENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
o/toh~
SU AN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
1JA~ Uro
H IDI AS 0 -CICKO
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
~,~
Cf!/()/O/
I DATE'
APPROVED BY:
~/.> /'i
J S PH K. SCHMITT, ADM ISTRATOR ' DATE
o MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Collier County Planning Commission:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the June 23, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
GU-200B-AR-13245
Revised 4/1/09
Page 13 of 13
.
Item VI. A.
ENVIRONMENT AI.. ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF APRIL 1.2009
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT
Petition No.:
Petition Name:
Applicant/Developer:
CU-2008-AR-13245
The Resource Recovery Park
Collier County through its Solid Waste
Management Department, represented by
David Deans ofPBS & J
PBS&J
PBS&J
Engineering Consultant:
Environmental Consultant:
II.
LOCATION
.
The subject property, consisting of approximately 341 acres, is located approximately
1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard and I mile north of White Lake Boulevard, in
Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
III.
DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
ZONING
DESCRIPTION
N - Rural Agricultural (A)
Hideout Golf Course and several large tracts with
single-family homes
S - Rural Agricultural (A)
Collier County Landfill on 31 10= acres and a 3010=
acre undeveloped tract
E - Rural Agricultural (A)
scattered single-family homes and vacant tracts
along Garland Road
W - Estates (E)
a canal then scattered single-
family homes
.
EAC Meeting
Page 2 of J2
.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The petitioner is requesting Conditional Uses within the Rural Agricultural Zoning
District within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Mixed Use District Overlay
for Sending Areas to allow 1) a "Collection and Transfer Site for Resource
Recovery," pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section
2.03.01.A.1.c.12; and 2) "Public Facilities, including Solid Waste and Resource
Recovery Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair Facilities"
pursuant to LDC Section 2.03,08.A.4,a.(3)(b) for a project to be known as the
Resource Recovery Park.
The petitioner has stated that the landfill operation itself will not be expanded into the
subject tract; no authorization to do that is being sought. The Conditional Uses being
sought would allow some of the non-landfill operations or those operations that are
accessory to the aclual land-filling operation. For example, as shown on the site plan
there are areas of the site se1 aside for yard waste and storm debris processing and tire
processing. These items are not necessarily buried in the landfill; they are separated
and removed from the site for further processing.
.
The site lies immediately north and west of the Collier County Landfill, on vacant,
county-owned property. It is generally situated one mile east of Collier Boulevard
and one mile north of White Lake BoulevardlI-75. Primary vehicular access will be
via an interconnection with an existing north-soulh service road through the landfill
site onto White Lake Boulevard. Future accesses are planned from the south via
northward road extensions along the western and eastern landfill property lines, and
by impermanent bridging over the canal to the west providing for an emergency and
administration access road across from 31" A venue SW,
V.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. Future Land Use Element
The subject property is designated as Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District (RFMUD) - Sending Lands, on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), The RFMUD generally provides a transition between the
Urban and Estates designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural
and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The RFMUD employs a
balanced approach to protect natural resources and private property rights and
provides for large areas of open space, The RFMUD allows for a mixture of urban
and rural levels of service.
The Sending Lands have been identified as being least appropriate for development
within the RFMUD. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a
greater degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than Receiving Lands
EAC Meeting
Page3 of 12
.
or Neutral Lands and generally have avoided being disturbed through previous
development or agricultural operations.
The RFMUD allows for resource recovery activities within Sending Lands, stating,
Public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facilities,
and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities, shall
be permitted within Section 25, Township 49S, Range 26E, on lands
adjacent to the existing County landfill. This shall not be interpreted
to allow for the expansion of the landfill into Section 25 for the
purpose of solid waste disposal.
In application materials, the petitioner explains,
Single stream recycled material collection centers will collect glass,
cans. paper. plastics and other materials in an unsorted single stream
of materials to be recycled. Once collected, these materials would be
brought to a central processing center, such as the Material Recovery
Facility (MRF) proposed for the Resource Recovery Park where they
would be sorted, processed and packnged for shipping to a secondary
materials market where they would be reused.
.
Staff points out this Resource Recovery Park proposal seems less like a typical
resource recovery facility, and more like a collection-and-transfer site, as collected
materials will go through sorting, processing and packaging operations here before
being shipped to secondary markets. No incineration facilities are proposed to
convert any materials to energy. The proposal does, however include a facility for
converting the adjacent landfill's methane gases to energy - which simply flames-off
currently. Nonetheless, the proposed uses are without question, "public facilities".
RFMUD Sending Lands provision C) 10 requires that native vegetation be
preserved as set forth in Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(CCME) Policy 6.1.2., which requires eighty percent (80 percent) of the native
vegetation present to be preserved. Comprehensive Planning leaves this CCME
consistency determination to Environmental Services personnel as part of their
review of the petition in its entirety.
Consideration of the Collier County Resource Recovery Park also extends to
other elements of the Growth Management Plan, including the Capital
Improvement Element, Economic Element, and Solid Waste Sub-Element of the
Public Facilities Element.
Landfill related resource recovery activities are supported by the provisions of the
Capital Improvement Element (CIE), particularly how the project is programmed into
the 5- Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. The CIE identified the present
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of 12
.
proposal in previous years' 5- Y ear Schedules of Capital Improvements. Moneys were
accumulated in previous fiscal years toward this project with the actual project
completion date reaching into 2009. To this extent, the proposed Resource Recovery
Park is consistent with the CIE. However, staff notes the present CIE does not
include this project in the 5- Year Schedule of Capital Improvements,
Recycling programs protecting natural resources, conserving energy, prolonging the
useful life of landfills and maintaining a positive public image are supported by
Policy 1.6 of the Economic Element. This Element also encourages the preservation
of sensitive natural resources by Policy 1.8. This proposal adheres to these policies
by establishing the resource recovery facilities on approximately one-half the 341 acre
subject property - while the other half is to remain undeveloped and improved by
removal of exotics.
Numerous Policies in the Solid Waste Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element
instruct Collier County to evaluate full-service recycling centers, develop means to
divert solid waste from the landfill, explore emerging conversion technologies, and
maintain leachate and gas management systems in compliance with its (landfill)
permit. The proposed Resource Recovery Park is consistent with the provisions of
the Solid Waste Sub-Element.
.
The petitioner has provided Exhibit II, Narrative Answers for Evaluation Criteria
Questions as part of their application materials, with complete explanations regarding
the consistency of the proposed Resource Recovery Park with numerous provisions in
the GMP. They can be referred to there in their entirety, as staff has surrunarized the
explanations as parts of our Comprehensive Planning Comments portion of this
reVlew.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Conditional Use may be
deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan.
B. Conservation & Coastal Manaeement Element
The Collier County Resource Recovery Park (CCRRP) project has been found
consistent with all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan, including the
following objectives and policies. Please refer to the Environmental Impact
Statement for further detail.
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states" All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estnaries shall meet all applicahle federal, state, or local water quality
standards.
EAG Meeting
Page 5 of 12
.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative
impacts of stonnwater runoff, stonnwater systems should be designed in such a way
that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to
enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine
system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to
mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing
interconnected dry and wet detention areas and a wetland( s) to provide water quality
retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events.
Objective 6.1 The County sbaD protect native vegetative communities tbrough
tbe applicatiou of minimum preservation requirements.
Policy 6.1.2 For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District shaD be preserved
on site through the application of preservation and vegetation retention
standards and criteria.
.
Policy 6.1.6 allows exemptions from the native preservation retention
requirements ofCCME policy 6.1.2 on County owned land located in Section 25,
Township 26E, Range 49S, if permitted uses are restricted to the portions of the
property that are contiguous to the existing land iIll operations; exotic removal
wiU be required on the entire site.
Policy 6. I .2 and requires 80% preservation of native habitat outside the Natural
Resources Protection Area (NRP A) sending lands. Under the current GMP all of
Section 25 is currently zoned A or Rural Agricultural within the North Belle Meade
Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay for Sending Areas. Sending
areas by definition include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for protected
species and have been determined to have the highest degree of environmental value
and sensitivity. The land preservation requirement is reduced where lands contiguous
to the Collier County Landfill are to be developed pursuant to CCME Policy 6. 1.6 is
specific to this site and states "On the County owned land located in Section 25,
Township 26E, Range 49S, [sic](+/- 360 acres) the native vegetation retention and
site preservation requirements may be reduced to 50% if the permitted uses are
restricted to the portions of the property that are contiguous to the existing land fill
operations; exotic removal will be required on the entire +/- 360 acres." The
proposed development will require the preservation of 50% of the native vegetation
on site. The Conceptual Site Plan adheres to this requirement to preserve native
vegetation and the site preservation requirements will be met as follows:
Total project area = 341 acres. 341 acres X 0.50 (50% preservation) = 170.5 acres of
native vegetation preservation required. Proposed total acres of on-site native
vegetation to be preserved = 170.8 acres
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 12
.
Policy 6.1.4 Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation shall be removed from all new
developments. All invasive exotic vegetation will be removed from the project site
during the development process and the entire site shall be kept free of exotic
vegetation in perpetuity.
Policy 6.1.7 The County shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into
landscape designs in order to promote the preservation of native plant
communities and to encourage water conservation.
The final site plan landscape design will include the required preservation of native
plan communities, supplementary planting of drought tolerant native vegetation, and
the inclusion of littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds.
Policy 6.1.8 An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required to evalnate
the impact of a proposed development.
This ElS is being submitted to fulfill the requirements of the GMP and LDC.
.
Objective 6.2 The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural
functions of wetlands pursuant to the appropriate policies under Goal 6. Policy
6.2.1 Wetlands shall be verified by jurisdictional field delineation.
A copy of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) specific
purpose Formal Wetland Delineation Survey, the FDEP letter documenting the
field verification of the wetland boundary, and email communication with the FDEP
which denotes informal approval of the wetland boundary have also been included
with the survey (Figure 10 of EIS) following this section.
Policy 6.2.3 Collier County shall implement a comprehensive process to ensure
wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands are protected and conserved.
The process outlined within this policy is primarily based on directing
concentrated population growth and intensive development away from large
interconnected wetland systems.
The project site has been affected by surrounding development and the on-site
wetlands have been effectively isolated by road construction and utility easement
improvements, Natural hydrologic patterns have been altered by the construction of
the Golden Gate Canal, adjacent development, and private roadways. The project will
adhere to all applicable State, Federal, and local wetland regulations. Wetland impacts
have been limited to lower quality wetlands with impaired functions. Mitigation will
be provided to ensure that the project will not result in a net loss of wetland function.
The development and associated storm water management plan will improve the
hydrology of the site's existing wetlands and restore the habitat value of
approximately 67 acres of project site uplands through the removal and continued
maintenance of exotic vegetation,
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 12
.
Policy 6.2.5: Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and that portion of the
Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System which is contained within the
Immokalee Urban Designated Area, Collier County shall direct land uses away
from higher functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands
based upon the vegetation requirements of Policy 6.1.2 of this element, the
wetland functionality assessment described in paragraph (2) below, and the final
permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District.
GMP Policy 6.2.5. (6) states, "Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to
wetlands in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions." In addition, the
policy states, ""No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland
functional score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland
functional score of the impacted wetlands. However, in no case shall the acreage
proposed for mitigation be less than the acreage being impacted."
.
The Solid Waste Department (SWD) has stated in the ElS that they will "adhere to the
policy of 'No net loss of wetland functions' through the use of appropriate
mitigation." Onsite preservation will not be considered as mitigation. Proposed
wetland impacts total 39 acres and will be mitigated for offsite. Currently a
mitigation plan has not been finalized for this project. The mitigation plan will be
finalized during the development and permitting phase of the project.
Policy 6.2.6 Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, required preservation
areas, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be dedicated as conservation and
common areas in the form of conservation easements and shall be identified or
platted as separate tracts.
All preservation and mitigation areas will be placed under conservation easements
dedicated to the appropriate state and federal agencies as required by their respective
permits.
Objective 7.1 The County shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed
animal species and their habitat.
Protected species surveys have been conducted on the site. Only the bald eagle was
observed on the site. No eagle nests were observed on site. Eagles have been
observed flying overhead and scavenging within the adjacent landfill. Please refer to
listed species details given under B. 4. below for further details.
Policy 7.1.4 All development shall comply with applicable Federal and state
permitting requirements regarding listed species protection.
During the permitting process the project will additionally comply with all applicable
Federal and state permitting requirements regarding listed species protection.
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 12
.
VI.
MAJOR ISSUES
A. Storrnwater Manal!ement
This northern portion of this site lies partially within the Main Golden Gatt; Canal
Basin and the southern portion lies within the Henderson Creek basm. Both basins
have allowable discharge rates of 0.] 5 cfs per acre.
This project has not yet been submitted to SFWMD for permitting because of the
conceptual nature of the design prior to the Conditional Use, but the petitioner
realizes that a SFWMD permit must be obtained.
Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier COWlty Land Development Code states "The
surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and
permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from
review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated storm water to
be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07."
.
I
The proposed stormwater management system is designed to provide floodplain
compensation volume and water quality storage treatment in the proposed pond and
attenuation by storage in wetlands, so the water management aspects may be reviewed
by the EAC.
The proposed water quality treatmen1 volume is based on 150% of the one inch
requirement, which is the same as the present 1.5 inch requirement. Treatment is
accomplished in the wet detention area and recovery is accomplished by V notches in
the control structure sized not to exceed one-half inch of rainfall over the developed
area in a 24 hour period.
B. Environmental
1. Site Description
The proposed CCRRP encompasses approximately 341 acres and contains ]44.4
acres of wetlands and 196.6 acres of uplands. The proposed development will require
impacts to approximately 39 acres of low quality wetlands and 131.2 acres of uplands.
2. WetIands
The total wetland area within the project site is 144.4 acres. A total of 39 acres of
wetlands will be impacted by the proposed development of the CCRRP. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) completed field inspection of the
site on October 24, 2008, A copy of the FDEP correspondence verifYing the site
EAC Meeting
Page 9 of 12
.
wetland boundaries has been included in Subsection (c) of the EIS along with a copy
of the specific purpose Formal Wetlaud Delineation Survey for the property.
3. Preservation Requirements
The GMP (Policy 6.1.2) and the LDC Subsection 3.05.07.C.3.a requires 80%
preservation of native habitat on non-NRP A sending lands. The land preservation
requirement is reduced where lands contiguous to the Collier County Landfill are
developed, in which case the preservation requirement would only be 50% (CCME
Policy 6,1.6). Therefore, 50% preservation of the 341-acre site requires 170.5 acres
of native vegetation preservation. The on-site native vegetation to be preserved is
170.8 acres.
4. Listed Species
The site was surveyed in August and September 2006; January 2007, April 2008, and
October 2008. Species surveys were conducted in accordance with, Wildlife
Methodolow Guidelines for Section 18D of the Aoolication for Develooment, There
were minimal observations of threatened and endangered wildlife.
.
Bald eagles were observed perched in the canopy trees along the periphery of the
project area. Eagles were observed flying overhead and scavenging at the adjacent
landfill. Eagles may use the CCRRP site for perching and resting given its proximity
to the landfill. There was no evidence that the eagles were regularly roosting or
nesting onsite. In addition to the bald eagle the endangered hand fern (Ophloglossum
palmatum) was observed on the site.
The site falls within the primary range of the black bear. FWC black bear telemetry
data indicates that a bear was recorded on the site in 1988. No bears, scat, or tracks
were observed during the wildlife surveys conducted on the site. Collier County
Solid Waste Department will be required to utilize the guidelines provided by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) with respect to the
black bear and will incorporate the recommendations and guidelines developed under
the Be Bear Aware Program.
The site falls within the primary zone of the Panther Focus Area. Figure 15 of the EIS
details the location of the Panther Focus Area and panther sightings near the CCRRP
site. The nearest recorded panther sighting was a deceased panther recorded in 1995.
No panthers were observed on the site during field surveys. The SWD is aware that
compensation for impacts to habitats within the Panther Focus Area will be required
by the USFWS. The details of the compensation will be determined during
Environmental Resource Permitting.
EAC Meeting
Page 10 of 12
.
Tree cavity surveys for Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) were conducted; neither
RCWs nor tree cavities were observed. Habitat on the site would not appear to
support RCWs. However, this area has known active RCW colonies in the vicinity
and with proper management additional foraging will be provided to this endangered
species. An RCW management plan will be required to be submitted and approved as
part of the next development order.
Surveys were also conducted for the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (BCFS). Neither the
BCFS nor nests of the BCFS were observed on the site.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval ofCU-2008-AR-13245 Collier County Resource
Recovery Park with the following stipulations:
Stormwater Manaeement:
No site specific stipulations.
.
Environmental:
I. The 39 acres of off-site mitigation shall be identified prior to Site Development
Plan approvaL
2, An RCW management plan will be required to be submitted and approved as part
of the next development order.
EAC Meeting
Page 11 of 12
.
PREPARED BY:
STAN CHRZANO
ENGINEERING IEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE
J~t~
o~!/09
DATE
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPAR1MENT
.
~k)~
KA D ELEM, A.I.C.P.
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
3 -/3 -Oq
DATE
EAC Meeting
Page 12 of 12
.
REVIEWED BY:
SON
AL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
3- ('3--0<7
DATE
~?iifJ D3'30j
LIAM D. LO Z, Jr.,$.E DATE
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR
.
it.-. 7. w 1L-----
5R-ve" -r. w: II:a....5
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
$. fb -Or
DATE
APPROVED BY:
~~~ ~JK.N'T
. r .
PH K. SCHMITT DATE
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR
.
RESOLUTION NO. 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONAL USES FOR A
RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY WITHIN A RURAL
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE NORTH
BELLE MEADE OVERLAY AND RURAL MIXED USE
DISTRICT OVERLAY FOR SENDING AREAS PURSUANT
TO SUBSECTION 2.03.01.A.l.c.l2 AND SUBSECTION
2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
THE RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK, ON PROPERTY
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD AND 1 MILE NORTH OF WHITE LAKE
BOULEVARD IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida,
and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish,
coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection
of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 2004-41) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing
regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the
granting of Conditional Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and
constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as
in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Uses
for a Resource Recovery Facility within a Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North
Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Mixed Use District Overlay for Sending Areas pursuant to
Subsection 2.03.01.A\.c.l2 and Subsection 2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) of the Collier County Land
Development Code on the property hereinafter described for a project to be known as the
Resource Recovery Park, and the Collier County Planning Commission has found as a matter of
fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all
.applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection IO.08.00.D. of
the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
Petition Number CU-2008-AR-13245 filed by David Deans of PBS & J, representing
Collier County through its Solid Waste Management Department, with respect to the property
described in Exhibit "B", be ,and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Uses for a
Resource Recovery Facility within a Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North Belle
Meade Overlay and Rural Mixed Use District Overlay for Sending Areas to allow I) a
"collection and transfer site for resource recovery" pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01.A.l.c.12, and
2) "public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facility" and "public vehicle
and equipment storage and repair facilities" pursuant to Subsection 2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) of the
Collier County Land Development Code, for a project to be known as the Resource Recovery
Park, in accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit "C" and subject to the
conditions found in Exhibit "D", Exhibits "A", "B", "c" and "D" are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board,
This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super-majority vote, this _ day of
,2009.
2
'ATTEST:
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
By:
. Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibits attached: A.
B.
C.
D.
08-CP8-00845/12 HFAC 1/21/09
{to\" 0'"
0,,\'
\'
Findings of Fact
Legal Description
Conceptual Site Plan
Conditions
3
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2008-AR-13245
The following facts are found:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.l.c.5 and 2.03.07.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or _ Affect mitigated by
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
DATE:
CHAIRMAN:
EXHIBIT A
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
CU-2008-AR-13245
The following facts are found:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 and 2,03.07,L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes No
c. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals,
DATE:
MEMBER:
EXHIBIT A
81!QIYX3
\
I,
tl~ ~ ~
~~~~
i!!'! .. ;
"ll'! !<'
iliih!i ,!1I! "I'
Ii li!i!!!h'I!!!!! .,
. I"'\l!< II'!"'! "
. ;/lhilll lilkl'.iilW!1
"[I! ..,',<,",.",,'" II"
~ e~~~~~~~ ~ ~'a!~~g!;a~U; ~~~aa
, ~ ~ b I i~
! !Ii" !'l "
! i I!!I II; Iq
.. , 11,1 ,Ii I i
1 i ~ ~ ill' f .;' ~ ~
'!' 'hI 1!lll I !"
i I i Ii; j ~ - i i I ~ t <
I!, I"il iill!. ! i! i
il! 1 I dh' i 1 l~ 1
~!~~tgli~t~~i.~~~ ~
',! 'I!! ,j.,,' i H !
~ i: : ~ ~ . f1 I J i I": i ~ s
!" '!lllil'!: !'..,
li'ill II;!;! ! ill1!,
I~ ~ i Ii ,~' ~ ~ t i1.~11 ~
I" "<! ill'! 'II !;h I ,
i~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~1'!~1 i I
JI J.' H~f !c J ~ l . L'I I ~
'!i!!'I!'1 !l'!111 il*i:
\I !I<' ," . ,,' ,I"
Ii II! I,! i! ! I"::;;
'I!l ~hjl.hl,:!: :ml! I
'I
;.
ih
'j'
!'!
1'1
,I.
Il!
Il'
',i
'I'
, !
, ,
~; i
Ii;
..,
i ~ I
I!' i ,
!Ii
'I! !I ,II
!i! Ii 'I'
~H ~i ~ a
L
~~
,I
ii
Ii
; Ii
!. "
,'i II
, !,,'
'I ~.
! il H
:;t :1
f-
en
cii
! !
If ,I !!! I ! !
, I I ,! ',' ! I ' I I I
I . . , I I I' I . . .
. ! i ! ! ! .!oi ! , ! i ! !. !. . i
, ' , , , I 1111 I ! ' . , , , ' .
i I I I ' , 'I " , ~ I 1 I I I I ;
1\ {( ll\ {( I; \!\ I!! ; J {\ ~ [1\ J ! I!
!III .1111111 ~"l'! II; II " I 'I Ii 11 ii'
~;!~l;!;!;!;!,~!!,!~ij!;lh~,!,!~'~~t
h .~ ~~ .f .~ .:> l~i ObI f' 'X .:> ~. f' I:> ~" ~. .b
'II ~lll .Ij ~I<:! ''I ~;Il " :!.; l Illilli ~;
1-,'l.!':lltl'ti:!,',!'iil'!I!: ,tl!:!!,j!,!!'.;!,,!, l!,l
- ~~ ~t i~; ~a I~a ~ I, xi!~ II! ~B !~t Fa ~e ~B!~ ;i
II!l~I!'ll~llllll~.~'ll~~',~ill~lilu~.
~ ~ -I. " 3 ~&! ~ g ~ " .DB ~!B ~ " ~h ~I! 'I~ 'Is 'IS ~ 3 '~i ~i~
! h, hI il, h. h. ill hI hi hi h. II, hl i.. h, i.. i.l hl
.. ~ . ~ .
b',li!!il: .Ii
;1~i!l!!i!! Iq
lil!illi!!! Il(,,!
'lli!"i~!l ·
u;~;~ iig i:1i
!IMII!m :11
ri~..!~",'ol I'!
tio!l!o~i~i ;~I
~:!I'!.I'I- !i'i!i il~
Ii; I ~ i J ~"
<, ,,!Ii, 11'1
! !;:al~,jil~ j!il
~ :i;~~II-;;;~! i;~i ~
'1Ii"I'lli!l, , il'i
!1!,li,!:I!i! li!I;!
I "!!!i'i,I'!l I ~!i. i
~ ;~,it'= ;I;~l r !'Vi; !
Ihi!li'iiill! ill i
~
N
ill
"'
Z<{
~9
-'"
IO
f-~
:0"-
o -
eniC
mZ
~:o
"-0
'1'0
en",
Zill
3:::0
O~
f-O
o
~
N
Z
o
r=
u
ill
en
" , i""'", , 1 , - , ! Ii' .. I ' ,
I ~ . I ! I ' ! ! ! ' i , , , i , ' , I i I ;, ii'" 'I
I ill 1 , . I ! ! ! ! ' ! I ; I ! , : ' , ~~, , 'I! ' I I
" 1 ' , ' L ' , , j 1 Ii' ! ' I I ~ I I I! I I :.1 i . ,
'. ' I ! i ! I I I " I I I.. - I " ! I I
!, ; t t; _ _ I I ~ ! ~ ~" I l i ~ i J: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~a ~ I
it ; ! ! ! 'i ' , , i ; ! ! ' ! ' ! I I; ! ! !I! I Ii' ! ' ,
~ - .t . J ~ ~ ~ il ~ ~ ~ , 'I ~ d ~~ ~ ~ ~il ~ ~ g I . , ,
" , I " ! Ii . . . , , , <' ." ," . . .. < ,< !..
10 , I ,\ . ~ ~ ~ I I 1 j- ~ - ,; , . ,; ; I' 'I j- -I j;' . ~ ~
I ~ J ~ 1 a ~~ :' ) ) ! ~ i ~ ~ :c-~ 0: ~ i ~- I i pI ~ - "
,ill-' .I! 1.1,1 ',Ii 'II II -,II! I! I', I:. II ,I ,i!ll Ii '_"',i I:. I: !,II" I' 1'1: 'Ii J i
"~f J ~ J ~ r r ~ ~ ~. . -" _0 -J OJ _ -r~ II Ii E". -~~ ~ -~ ~! j"
;~I ll~ ~ _s~ IS ~I ~ ~ !~ i~ i~ ~~ !5 h !~i i.: ~J ~r ~s !5 !s F~ :; !s !sr j -~ ~
m H H II! il il'l' i', H H H H !l !! n !idj'i H !: iI!!1 !I ill i! !! *i hl!i 'i'
il:> 11 I. -I. ~r a H ; ~il Hi H H 'I iii" ~ I iJ Ij all h ~J ah!J ir ill! !i h
:;i ~: ~~ ~~~ i~ hI! II II I. !: !; ;~ :~ !r :.~ !.~ ~~ H H. ~~ ~~ !~B I~ ~~ ~~ i h~;~ !:
~5j is It ~i~ Ii j~~ i~ i~ i~ ~5 is q q ~~ ~;; ~t. ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~s Rj ~i~ Ii Ij !j:. I~~ ~5 ~5
:I! a :, ill:' :!!:h :,< :lj il :1 i'l i'l iI, il!< iil i, ii ii, ill:tj ili :,1 :'1 ill"l :'-1' 'l.lll
'; 1I 1 _, ~1 -I. Ie ,! ~ i; i~' i=" ii~ ill 91 I i,,.llt ." i.-i'.i' r~ ~ i! i~
1;:1 h h hi h hi 1:\ hi 1:\ h I; rl,;1 1;1 h! hi 1;1 hi I:! w hi ,:11:1 gl hu 1;I!a !:!
"'!!' 01 '1. 'II I" Isl I", Isl.!' I' !Il !ll !" !", !,! !il n II, 'II 'II III 'II !!l 'l,'l !'I' ~ii ".
'I, +";.., ""1"' .,'"' -,.-il-,,-'--"-l'-"-' -I', """'l"'"""I"" .Il',i
hJ h~ h~ ht ~~il lr. ~;~ il~ ~i~ i~! he ~f. ~J; hg il5 h! ~J~ ~.~ h; h. h. h~ h. ~h h R~ ~h h3 hs
----,--._----------------~---
! !~:,~ :
l i
.
~ lH,~
~
I ~
^ I
~
~ !
, I
" '.
~ I t ~.
111I
; dil'
il!Hi!
r
W
o ~
Z 0
~ "
r u
~ "
I~ ~
z ~
0 U
0
0 0
~I
I
l
~
OC
~
~
r
OC
W
>
0
U
W
~
IW
lu
I~
0
"
W
OC
I
"
OC
W W
Z C
0 "
" ~
" ~ -
" 0
, ~
0 0
U "
~ ~
Z z
5 .6
u u
" OC
o ~
o ~
OC 0
~ U
, 0
~ 0
~
j
1L
li~J:i!'!
"lot
! ;;;;
~ ~ t,!l
! iB "
~ NmO
0 f' ocn5
0 z:;!m
~ .1 I 9iTl~
0 m"'~
" , -<
. !! m
. J: MAllIIGOUlENGA7ECANAL
~ " ~ DCL '"
0
" ~ 0
, . ~!t " ~ ~~~1i\~ ~
N_, I " ,<~.m
~~~2 'JI II
i I, " ~ ~~~I~
~~J!l-l " ~ "';!ll~~
l " ~
" ~~~~~
" ; ;:~~~~
" >
p g~!l1e~
i II
" ~~i ~
II " ~ .
N< " I e"
0> H " 8'
20 ~ Jr
m~ ;~ , II ~~
1'2 ~ ~~ I . " .>
~-< ~~ ~p
" . " ala
~ " 0 d " g:~
" ,
p
jl "
"
.1 ! "
:S::l "
! \ "
~~i:t " '"
, " a
\, II ~8
I
" z~
m"
10 _(II }~
" 81 t. .11 o~
8S ;::----, -I co
~i' iii :: r
gIll ''-.1 , ~ ~~ c
;lil~ ~ o~ . ro
"U "I' 0 "II " I
~i ~ m E filo
:i~ 'I ~ ~ _l:-:n , "
0 ~o " I
, ~ zO " "
~I:~ . . c:F ;0
~ "
.~ I m -~~ rn '~
0 . en
\l T <0 rn
i J!!g ;0 "
" " ~z < "
;:p~ m:< rn "
,e-~~ 00 J> I
"i ]li ;0 :n
~~= rn
~=-"~ mm J>
0 h ZO
0 m~iii or " I
r ~plO) ~~
r "'g mZ
m '. ~~-!!l .0 " .
" 1.1 -t....;!:; -" " '
NO ~~ ~~o 00 " !
00 s:~ . " m "
ZC "i .30 0 "
mz ~ -<
1'::< a "
! z HI::
>.,; N
~
Z -TI 11::
0 ~~g N
~ , " 0
F 1;[!!.... 2
r " m
" ~
"
rn
x
:J:
;;;
~
I
Hit~ it~ i
llh! ii" ~
~~!;~~ ~h! ~
dill ~i. ~
,;", i ~f
"'I~i 'f-
Hit Hi
5~J~ ~8i.
!11~f U
i"I'" .~
~5-? '"
II
ii
itt!"
<Tiil5"
HI
, ,~
'z,
~!!.
."
"!g
i~~
.;'
[~
i~
9-~
I
<i"
Ii!
i, ~
ii'
~"l.
,"
.0
zO
~6
!~
I~
!h:
.'
~,
iilgg!"
;'"
'''1
~ ;;~
~I~8
, H~
_io
,-a
,'r
"j8
~~~
:E~~
;. ~,...
~ ILl'"
".
>0
"-j'l.
'(/;001'"'
~it~
~ll;
:;tla._O
.. .-
",lOllS'
.~ ~
..h
n~o
fh~
!i1:ei
"r~i
;: Ii
~~l
llltm
i I -H!
, I ~i~'
rh--
InH
I'n~
~<>-ai'
"0-
I -<.,
"~
, < ."
ift~i
N<
o
Z
m
"
~
i
"
-"
...Ill'"
"I:
~~~
,.~
,
"
;0
m
en
rn
;0
<
rn
J>
;0
rn
J>
Ii,
hi! '
~o8
zl1c
o~~
I
!I
h
r
--------- ~l.~
h~!lj
"Z~O 0
3~~g'
Exhibit C
i
i
N
o
z
m
~
!l~ ------
i!~
!;JOO West Cyprus Street Sw-te 2CJCJ
TO'mpa. norjdD 3.3607
Tt!I. (B13) 282-7275
Fa>:.. (81.1) 285-7207
~r/p.-I/",,,,,._pbSf<=<Jm
Conceptual Site Plan
Rescuu:e Recovery Park
So~ld W8Iste Management: l/lIeparrtl"li1ltJIllllli
March 11. 2008
Revised December 22,
2008
!ifC1l<><B,m......p...........""...t
~
CONDITIONS OF APPRO V AL
Collier County Resource Recovery Park
CU-2008-AR-13245
1. The Resource Recovery Park shall be limited to that which is depicted on the conceptual site
plan, identified as the "Collier County Resource Recovery Park" dated March 11, 2008 and last
revised December 22,2008, prepared by PBS&J.
2. The site plan noted is conceptual in nature for Conditional Use approval. The final design must
be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations.
3. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Director may approve minor
changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized
by this conditional use, so long as these minor changes remain consistent with all applicable
development standards.
4. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this Conditional Use approval, or major
changes to the approved plan, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application,
and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of submittal,
including Chapter 10.02.03, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41,
as amended, for Site Development Plan (SDP) review and approval.
5. If it is judicially determined or otherwise agreed to by the County, then the County shall
provide access to the outparcels identified on the Boundary Survey as #40, #41, and #42 (all of
which are located within the easternmost tract identified on the site plan as "Out Parcel 10.20
Ac Zoned-A"). Said access shall be to Garland Road or other public or private road. Preserve
area calculations shall not be affected by such access.
6. The "Emergency and Administration Access Road" shown on the site plan shall be used for
declared emergency events only.
7. The 39 acres of off-site mitigation shall be identified prior to Site Development Plan approval.
8. A Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) management plan will be required to be submitted and
approved as part of the next development order.
9. The developer shall submit the Site Development Plan to the EAC for review and approval.
Revised 4/9/09
Exhibit 0
AGENDA ITEM 9-(
-
Co1W:y County
(~9
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING: MAY 7, 2009
SUBJECT: PETITION CU-2008-AR-13679, MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner:
Edward Larson
Messiah Lutheran Church, Inc.
5800 Golden Gate Parkway
Naples, FL 34116
Agent:
Dwight Nadeau
RWA, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a
Conditional Use of the Estates (E) Zoning District, as specified in Subsection 2.03.01.B.l.c.1 of
the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), to expand an existing church and add an
accessory child day care center.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The 5.15-acre sublect property is located at 5800 Golden Gate Parkway (CR 886), between 59th
Street SW and 60t Street SW, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida (see the location map on the following page).
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
Messiah Lutheran Church is an existing house of worship that was granted Provisional Use (now
called "Conditional Use") in 1976. With the approval of Petition PU-76-4-C, two buildings were
subsequently constructed which afforded approximately 8,648 square feet of area for the church
facility, with a seating capacity of 80 parishioners. With the subject Conditional Use petition, the
applicants are now requesting the addition of a child care center use, which would accommodate
a state-funded, pre-kindergarten scholastic (e.g. "head-start") program on weekdays. They are
also proposing an additional 24,234 square feet of floor area for church uses, resulting in a total
CU-2008-AR-13679
April 15, 2009
Page 1 of 9
" '.,~...,.
I
,
I
~I____m W!~ --I
rL_-~-- j .
~! -I j, II
i- --. : .m. -1, II
1m ..'
I
~ f
I~
Cl
=>
a.
U
,
.
,
.
b
z
o
~~
iiiu
o .~
~
i
,
l
'I I r I
,"--_~J I '
n "M:~';,",~' !- -r '"Mli~'n
, ,'I
,,< I 1
H~> , I!
,
.
1 [ II ii,
I'., I .,
~ ' ..
I i I
I : '
l I I
NoS ~33illS 4109
,
1-
L.
,
Q-
.
., 0
- --- ":
.
,
.
l
,
,
L_
',"O'S011UN /-+
~
1 "
g ~:<
0.:;:", ~g'i
! l' -,,"-
'. I ",'ii - ~8
\: , '\1)
j I; I \--i \
--J kiLl
u~~'::'.::'~?~ b3I.11_~ ,,<s_~?.. _/J l ~
~ 11- ~., f~l~ ,;.:J:,:,
'0 I'! -~'- ~' ~t';T
__, r~! 5 ~ ~~ ,J!1'! J{ij ~~~.'l.
~I 1,\ 04:: I i -- --\ ---"
Z ~ I" a:: () I "
i': 0'1 " "g I "I' ~6~ l, .,~'
---1 ~~ W~" Weir, i!::'i
o.~ I 'i''' - _ I I , ~ 1ir-,_ ..,
G b:~!. Ii ,~I ~Jif-l' f:;;,,:~Tilt!l~ili!~r-
O".~o "!I ~g . ~!! j~ j~ .. l; J !. _~;<'sC'*,O;~~
1 ~ ~ ) " ~/----1 --~~l,,~J
"; ;L 1 1; Iii) ~.!jK i':-['~,tfJ
! oj' I iV'j' :, ni ~'!N! i
~ 1 cO/A/ .,.zH D I!' \l/ ~
1 / ~ (},\/Q~ NH'o'Il .uNr<J~
~ '"""'''=-4'' ;~~r< -:- J1, ,.,--
! I iil p. ,
! I "\ ;;j!i I J !i"~~~
"." "W""';.1~" :1' ~:Ii~ < .,"'!1
.. ~! I '/, " il!!
II,
,
'~f~
'" ~~~
;"
? ~,
"
r
,
~'j
.<
iiC
iK ~
L
~ ~ i
r
1;;-
,,~~
.....'
li ~ ;j''-'- <>
(>---
3 ~ ~ ~- ,,>-
L ~~
i'~ ,,"
j,_.'
';T"~"'""" -
- "",,,,,,,-,,...
~~~ "~
_~;~~m-Cif~=
-,-
~IT
!j L iL
I' ,; _!,
I~~ ~,~ 0- I
~ - jr'~ ~;, L
I" ~~) "1\_ rI,,--1.-.J ~~~
"'O~ ~mr'>d-l~Od~" ~J_L ~~~
,
" , 'l
g }"
~ - I
"
[~t
,.
1-;; 1
-III"! I
I'1\'"
--, \,
""",.,:0
0..
<(
:2:
(9
Z
Z
o
N
~I
<0,
~I
,
ro
~I
0>'
U
~~I
~I
0..
<(
:2:
z
o
r
<(
o
o
.....J
'r-"" .
__._~, _.}liL___ '---jl'
,--- i. ",,,,,,,,,,,,, <<10
: i ~ !---D~
I j - ~ g I - 12 ~~
I ~ ~ I ~~ l~l nS] ~~
I Q i I ~~ l~l n1
I II I " j,^ 1",1 /
I',' ..- ,. '" "1
I \ ft.
!~ I I~L_-----;~
I . _Sr---J l ~:... 1'Ir"T1TTTl
I ' --]t----L-"iy '.J U I
II -- ;il b~.:" '1!j;'-lJ]' Jll '
--~ ~'\!o I
L------rl
~ : "" dITTTlm~'
~ ~. ~.~~IIU.l~~l~'ii ~ _(lUJJJ L~~~.~
- - -- ---L -- -- ~-: ~~.~___ ~.~_ ~- _I~_~:' ~u~'~ ~ ~ ~ '=~- L 1 -- :i ;;H~~gr SW __'_~ -~__
q<t, ~Fi;;_~~,~~,~,~,"'M..AT _ __ ._
{
i
,
,
i
i
I
I
f
I
j
I
.
I
I
!
I
,
~
~j~
~';q
___,___________ __M". __u'.___._.____
i
!
i
!
,.r---------;;-;;:~0ii,;;.7.'i,---
<
.
~
~
~g
~Q
~...
9fi
o
o
o
___~____ - --- - ---..,--- ~- -- - -- -- - -,.,;:;,.;;;:,.,;r...........-.--~--
L_______________ -______ ---.-------.-------------
JULI',lOO!
~la2-<~.()ll(ll)
"'0231005""2
----------------- -- ----------------
!~ n
~~ <, , 0
z C~
" i 0 , ~ ~
I' ~5 " c ~~
C <^ , " ~~
!!il ~~ ., z ,
,0 ~
,,, -, e
;,!j -, ~
II !; " ~~ ~ ~g~i .-, !;;
00 !il~l1:
~::; " .' ~ 0 ~
;~ g '" g~~~ -oJ:'" M
00 ! ~~ z :~: z
, l' ~~ z ~ ~~ " ." ~l'~ 0
~ :::~ 0 ~ "- ~-'<a ~ g;:lj~
~~ ~i ~ ~ . w
C "'o<:=' _:~"<
H ~ " ::: ~,!,~
n. ~ ~~~
,. " ~~ge.
5" ~fi I ~ ~ "n ~ ':! '""
1, Ii a " 0 ~:~ ~:~
, ol~
0, " ,0' il',f;1
10 " c(;~ ~g
" ~ :i '<
~~ "~ 00
. . . ai!>
.~
~~
- . "~
~~
Zl ,'is &E"
_..-~u:.
MESSIAH LUTHERAN
CHURCH
CONDiTIONAL USE
SITE: PLAN
=',:::~""::~~';",':;":~~:'",,.
MESSIAH LUTHERAN
CHURClI
D'XTAm\=.oo
C.NSUI_TING avilEngineering
...&.. '-, , .L ...... Surveying & M.owing
ro;o
p,~~.~
'"
'"fC>LD
0.><./'1.
"'.o_e....""'........""'."'...""".'''..
,.",,,.,.,._,,~..,.,,,,,...._,
of four buildings on the site, which would expand the chapel's seating capacity to 300
parishioners. As part of the Conditional Use process, the applicants would also like to request a
deviation from the height restrictions for signage on the site, which is subject to LDC
4.02.24, Corridor Management Overlay District (CMO)--S'pecial Regulations for Properties
Abutting Golden Gate Parkway West of Santa Barbara Boulevard, requiring property
identification signs to be no highcr than four feet. The applicants contend that such a request may
be made as legitimate part of the Conditional Use process, pursuant to LDC 5.06.03.A.7.d, which
states, "The Board of County Commissioners may approve additional signage as may be deemed
appropriate during the conditional use approval process." However, it is staffs opinion that the
applicants' justification is not applicahle to the subject proposal since the request is not for
"additional conforming signagc" but rather a Variance fi'om the four-foot height limitation
required by the Golden Gate Parkway CMO district to allow a proposed eight-foot tall non-
conforming sign. As such, staff has advised the applicants to pursue a Sign Variance, and is
recommending denial of this height variance request as part of this Conditional Use application.
As shown on the Conceptual Site Plan on the preceding page, entitled, "Messiah Lutheran
Church Conditional Use Conceptual Site Plan," prepared by R W A, Inc., and dated July 2008,
vehicular access to the site would be provided fl-om two existing access points on the church
site's 58'h Street SW frontage, which forms its eastern boundary. (Pedestrian access, although not
depicted, would he required at the time of site dcvelopment plan [SDPj approval in the form of a
pathway connected to a six-foot wide sidewalk paralleling 58th Street SW.)
The proposed chapel addition is located along the site's northern boundary, set back 75 feet from
its pre-taking Golden Gate Parkway frontage. The remaining square-footage expansions would
take place in two other buildings aligned south of the new chapcl, set back a minimum of 38.8
tCet ii-om the site's western property boundary. Thc minimum setbacks for these new structures
from 58'h Street SW, another front yard, would be I I () feet. Each of these proposed setbacks
would either meet or exceed the standards lor the E Zoning District, which require 75-foot and
30-foot setbacks, respectively. The front yard (the only affected yard) further conforms to the
CMO requirement for 75-foot setbacks in the E Zoning District. All of the structures are
proposed to be one-story, with a maximum zoned height of 30 feet, as prescribed by the E
Zoning District. However, if any building heights were to exceed one story, the front yard
setback of 75 feet would be increased by 25 feet for each additional floor, or the building would
be stepped back to provide a vertical slope of two to one. as required by the CMO.
Vehicular parking would be provided in an existing asphalt lot adjacent to Golden Gate Parkway;
in 15 proposed asphalt spaces perpendicular to 58th Street SW; and in a grass parking lot south of
the site's proposed southernmost building. As a result, the site would provide the 129 minimum
required parking spaces, including six handicapped spaces, plus an additional two loading
spaces.
To bufTer and screen the facility from a single-family home to the south, a six-foot tall masomy
wall is proposed in front of a 0.79-acre native preserve, which would be enhanced, if necessary,
to satisfy the Type B buffering requirement. Along the site's western boundary, adjacent to a
school, a required lO-foot Type A buiTer would be provided. The remaining perimeter
landscaping, abutting the site's rights-of~way fi'ontages, would be comprised of Type D buffers,
20 feet in width along Golden Gate Parkway and 1 () feet in width along 58'h Street SW. Because
the existing parking lot in the northeastern corner of the property prevents the continuation of
CU.2008.AR.13679
April 15, 2009
Page 2 of9
these buffers in this area of the site, the southernmost portion of the buffer width along 58th
Street SW would be increased to 20 feet and planted with compensating material, as approved by
the County Landscape Architect.
Aerial View of the Site
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North:
Golden Gate Parkway, then a single-family home and a vacant lot within the E
Zoning District
58th Street SW, then a single-family home within the E Zoning District
Single-family home within the E Zoning District
Handicap school within the E Zoning District
East:
South:
West:
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property, as identified on the Future Land Use
Map of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), is within the Estates ~~ Mixed Use District,
Conditional Uses Subdistrict land use designation. The Conditional Uses Subdistrict in the
Estates - Mixed Use District contains specific provisions for Conditional Uses in Golden Gate
CU.2008~AR.13679
April 15, 2009
Page 3 of9
Estates, ineluding Conditional Uses on Golden Gate Parkway. The relevant portions of that
provision are below:
. Recognizing the existing residentia/nature o[the land uses surrounding the 1-75 interchange at
Go/den Gate Parkway, there shall be no further conditional uses for properties abutting Go/den
Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Bou/evard. except as permitted
within the Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict; and, except as provided in
subparagraph 1., be/ow; and, except for essential services. as described in paragraph a), above.
. Further. no properties abutting streets accessing Gulden Gate Parkw'ay. between Livingston
Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. shall be approved fin' conditional uses except as permitted
within the Golden Gate Parkw'ay Institutional Subdistrict; and, except as provided in
subparagraph I., below; and, exceptfor essential services, as described in paragraph a). above.
The subject property is zoned Estates and is partially located within the CMO. The site has an
approved Provisional Use permitting churches and places of worship, and a church is currently
operating on the subject property. This petition seeks to expand the church and add a day care
center on the same property, with no change in legal description. Though this site does not
comply with the locational restrictions abovc, it was already approved for, and developed with, a
church use when the GMP was adopted in 1989 and is, therefore, deemed an "improved
property. "
Pursuant to Policy 5.9 of the Future Land Use Element and consistent application of this policy
since GMP adoption, the site may be redeveloped or further developed with the existing use as
long as such redevelopment or development occurs on the same site (i.e. no additional land is
added and such development is within the same legal description as the existing Conditional
Use). However, because the proposed Conditional Usc t~)r the child day care center is not an
accessorylrelated use of the existing church facilitv use. it would not be deemed consistent with
Policv 5.9.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with and complementary to the
surrounding land uses as set f()rth in the LDC. It is the responsibility of the Zoning and Land
Development Review staff as part of their review of the pctition in its cntircty to perform the
compatibility analysis.
In order to promote "smart growth" policies, and adhere to the existing development character of
Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and
redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Policy 7.1
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to
fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without
violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (Staff Comment: As
depicted on the conceptual site plan, the project has access onto Golden Gate Parkway
through access points off 58th Street SW,)
Policy 7.2
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (Staff
CU.2008.AR.13679
April 15, 2009
Page 4 of 9
Comment: As depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, the project maintains two access points
off of 58th Street S. W for both ingress/egress that connect to Golden Gate Parkway. No
internal roads are proposed and both the small size of the site and type of project make a loop
road infeasible.)
Policy 7.3
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their
interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless ofland use
type. (Staff Comment: The property to the south is zoned E and developed with a single-family
dwelling. The parcel to the west is zoned E with a developed provisional use; and to the north
and east are streets. Therefore, connection to adjacent parcels is not feasible.)
Policy 7.4
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of
densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (Staff
Comment: As depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, sidewalks have been located throughout
the project to safely allow pedestrians to walk inside the development.)
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed Conditional Use for a child care
facility may not be deemed consistent with the GGAMP. However, staff concludes that the
church expansion would bc consistent
Transportation Element (TE): Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway nctwork has sufficient
capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject
application can be deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP.
Golden Gate Parkway Impacts:
The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is link 21, Golden Gate Parkway,
between 1-75 and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The projcct generates 18 PM peak hour, peak
direction trips, which reprcscnts a 0.5 pcrccnt impact on Golden Gate Parkway. This segment of
Golden Gate Parkway currently has a remaining capacity of 1,507 trips and is currently at LOS
"C" as reflected by the 2008 AU1R.
No subsequent links beyond this segment of Golden Gate Parkway are significantly impacted,
thus no further analysis was required for PM Peak Hour impacts.
ANALYSIS:
Before any Conditional Use recommendation can be offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA), the Planning Commission must make findings that: 1) approval of the Conditional Use
will not adversely affect the public interest; and 2) all specific requirements for the individual
Conditional Use will be mct; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the
following matters, where applicable:
l. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan.
CU.2008.AR.13679
April 15. 2009
Page 50f9
The proposed expansion of the existing church facility is consistent with the provisions of the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) of the Growth Management Plan. In addition,
churches/places of worship are allowed as Conditional Uses in the E Zoning District of the
LDC. However, the proposed child care center, because it does not currently exist on the site
and would not be for the exclusive use of church congregants (i.e. a bona fide "accessory
use") may not be found consistcnt with the Policy 5.9 ofthc GMP.
Similarly, as the applicants' proposed eight-foot tall sign would conflict with the four-foot
height rcstriction of the Golden Gate Parkway CMO, the signage height variancc rcquest
would not be consistent with the LDC. As such, with the conditions of approval
recommended by staff, only the church expansion proposed with this petition may be found
consistent with all of the applicable provisions of the GMP and thc LDC.
2. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
and access in case of fire or catastrophe.
Transportation Planning staff has reviewed this petition and determined that adequate access
to and from thc property would be provided fi-om its two existing acccss points on 58th Street
SW, rather than Golden Gatc Parkway. as required pursuant to the CMO. As previously
noted, pedestrian access to the site would be provided at the time of SDP by a connection to
the cxisting six-foot sidewalk along Golden Gate Parkway and required six-foot widc
sidewalk paralleling 58th Street SW. Since the cxact location of this pedestrian connection
has not been specified on the conceptual master plan, staff has included a condition of
approval requiring its depiction at the timc of site development plan review and approval.
3. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to
noise, glare, economic or odor effects.
As previously noted, the proposed buildings would be separated trom the neighboring
residential uses to their north and east by roadways, and fi-om the single-family home to its
south by a generous nO-foot setback yard containing the site's 0.79-acre native preserve. In
addition, the standards of the LDC require the provision of vegetative buffers around thc
subject propcrty's perimeter, and a masonry wall or fence along its southern boundary to
reduce the potential impact of noisc and glare on thc home located there, pursuant to LDC
Section 5.03.02.E, Fences and Walls. (It should be noted that the applicant has located the
wall along the grass parking lot, forward of the preserve area, much to the satisfaction of the
affected neighbor.) As such, impacts on the surrounding properties would be minimized.
4. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district.
As previously noted, the house of worship has been in existence since the mid-1970s.
Furthermore, the proposed buildings would be separated fi-om residential uses by roadways;
and from the only abutting single-family home by a minimum distance of over 230 feet,
which setback would be further enhanced by a six-foot high masonry wall and O.79-acre
preserve. Because of its location, and the provision of the required buffers and wall or fencc,
any impacts on the surrounding neighbors created by the church expansion would be
minimized and compatibility insured, as rcquired by Policy 5.4 of the FLUE.
CU.200B.AR.13679
April 15, 2009
Page 6 of 9
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
Pursuant to LDC Section 8.06.03 0.1 Powers and Duties, the EAC did not review this petition
because the property is less than ten acres and no protected species or wetland impacts were
identified on the site.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
(Synopsis provided by Cheri Rollins, Administrative Assistant)
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on February 26, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. at the
Golden Gate Community Center. Three people from the public attended, as well as Dwight
Nadeau of RWA, Inc. and County staff.
Mr. Nadeau presented an overview of the requested Conditional Use to permit a church
expansion and to add a child day care. One of the residents, who lived to the immediate south
and would, therefore, be most affected by the expansion wanted to know how what effects the
proposal might have on her property. Mr. Nadcau explained that the church was committed to
building a six-foot high wall along the northern side of the preserve, and would also plant
vegetation on the southern side of the wall. Thus, her home would be shielded by the preserve,
newly planted vegetation and the wall. Mr. Nadeau also cxplained that the church's setbacks on
the southern side of the property would be at least 225 feet, which would maintain the site's
compatibility with her property. (The resident was very pleased with this commitment.)
Another attendee expressed concern about the addition of the school. Mr. Nadeau stated that
approximately 72 students were anticipated for the head-start program; and that although the
schedule had not yet been determined, the program would have terms of either three hours per
day for 180 days or six hours per day for 90 days. He added that it would add approximately 60
vehicular trips during peak hour periods.
The meeting ended at approximately 5:30 p.m.
Staff has not received any letters from the community regarding this project.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for CU-08-AR-13679 revised on April
15,2009. - SW
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition CU-2008-AR-13679 to the BZA with a
recommendation of denial for the proposed child care center, finding it incompatible with the
GMP. Staff also recommends denial of the requested eight-foot tall monument sign on Golden
Gate Parkway approval, finding it inconsistent with the CMO district of the LDC.
However, staff recommends approval of the proposed church expansion, subject to the following
conditions:
GU.2008.AR.13679
April 15, 2009
Page 7 of9
1. The Conditional Use is limited to what is shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, identified
as "Messiah Lutheran Church Conditional Use Conceptual Site Plan," prepared by RW A,
Inc., and dated July 2008. The site plan noted is conceptual in naturc for Conditional Use
approval only. The final dcsign must be compliance with all applicable fcderal, state, and
county laws and regulations.
2. Supplcmcntal native plantings in all three strata shall be added to preserve areas where
the removal of non-native and/or nuisance vegetation creatcs open areas with little or no
native vegetation coverage.
3. The maximum area of thc buildings on the site at build-out shall be limited to 65,569
sq uare- feet.
4. If building hcight exceeds onc story, the front yard setback of 75 feet shall be increased
by 25 feet for the additional floor; or the building shall be stepped back to provide a
vertical slope of two to one.
5. Irrespective of that shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, the property owner shall provide
a five-foot wide pedestrian connection to the site trom the existing six-foot sidewalk
along Golden Gatc Parkway, with thc exact location to be determined by the County
Transportation Planning Department at thc time of Site Development Plan review and
approval, pursuant to the requirements oCthe LDC.
6. No schools or child care centers shall be permittcd on the site. This shall not preclude
those accessory uses customarily associated with church uses, such as Sunday school, or
child care during worship services, church meetings and evcnts, etc.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
GU.2008.AR.13679
April 15, 2009
Page 8 of9
PREPARED BY:
~~RJJ~ ~1/~~
JOHN-QA ID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
1/is/or
RAYMO D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER . DkfE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
~~oo,
/ DAT
PH K. SCH ITT, ADMINI TRATOR
o MUNlTY DEVELOPMENT AND
VIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Collier County Planning Commission:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the September 15,2009 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
CU.2008.AR-13679
Page 90f9
FINDING OF FACT
BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
CU-2008-AR-13679
The following facts are found:
I. Section 2.03.03.C.5 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not advcrsely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other propel1y or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or ,.,_ Affect mitigated by ..__._~'
Aflect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
DATE:
COMMISSIONER:
Exhibit A
Page I of 1
MossJohndavid
From:
Sent:
To:
bonham_g
Tuesday, April 21, 200910:28 AM
MossJohndavid
Cc: RamlrezHeather, ashton_h; WilliamsSteven
Subject: 08-CPS-00875 Messiah Lutheran Church, Inc.- CU-2008-AR-13679:
Attachments: Doc_12_3F83.PDF
CaseSK: 16259
DatabaseName: CPSQL
IblNumAttach: 1
Matter: 08-CPS-00875
MatterStyle:
MessageGUID:
OriginalDate:
Profile Name:
Style:
08-CPS-00875 Messiah Lutheran Church, Inc.- GU-2008.AR-13679-
{4AC31942-69F5-4ECA-91 08-F1 F8EA447C3D}
None
CPSQL
Messiah Lutheran Church, Inc.- CU-2008-AR-13679-
JD,
Steve has completed his review of the above-referenced RLS item and approved the attached staff report.
Please do not hesitate to call if you need anything further.
Gail Bonham, Legal Secretary to:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Land Use Section Chief
Steven T. Williams, Assistant County Attorney
(239) 252-2939 . Telephone
(239) 252-6300 - Facsimile
gal I bon ham@colliergov.net
PREPARlm IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, REFLECTS THE MENTAL IMPRESSIONS, LITIGATION STRATEGIES AND LEGAL
THEORIES OFTHE tJNOERSIGNED ATTORNEY AND IS EXEMI~T FROM PUBLIC RECORDS DlSCLOSlilU: P\JRSUANTTO S 119.071(t)(d),
FLA. STAT. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR TIlE RECIPIENT ONLY. IF VOU RECEIVED TIJIS CO~'IMliNICATION IN ERROR, "LEASE
NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY, lJSE OR DISSEMINATION BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS
STRICTLY PROHIRlTED.
4/21/2009
RESOLUTION 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONAL USES TO ALLOW THE
EXPANSION OF A CHURCH AND THE CREATION OF A CHILD
DAY CARE FACILITY IN THE ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03.01.B.1.c.l OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5800 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, IN SECTION 29,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FI,ORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida,
and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish,
coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection
of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among
which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly appointed and constituted
planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of allowing the expansion of
a church as a Conditional Use and the creation of a child day care facility as a Conditional Use
pursuant to Section 2.03.01.B.l.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) in the
Estates (E) Zoning District on the property hereinafter described, and the Collier County
Planning Commission has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and
in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
Page I of2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier
County, Florida, that:
The petition filed by Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc., representing Messiah Lutheran
Church, Inc. of Golden Gate, with respect to the property most commonly described as 5800
Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Collier County, Florida, within the Golden Gate Subdivision, as
further described in Official Records Book 1380, Page 401, Plat Book 7, Page 58, Tract 81, Urtit
30 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be and the same is hereby approved for a
Conditional Use pursuant to Section 2.03 .01.B. I.e. I of the Collier County Land Development
Code (LDC) in the Estates (E) zoning district to allow the expansion of a church and the
creation of a child day care facility, in accordance with the attached Conceptual Master Plan
(Exhibit "B"), and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "C, n which is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and super-majority vote, this _ day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
STEVEN T. WILLIAMS
Assistant County Attorney
('"
~.~l'O'l
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Planning Commission Findings
Conceptual Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Page2of2
FINDING OF FACT
BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
CU-2008-AR-13679
The following facts are found:
I. Section 2.03.03.C.5 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with thc Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in rclation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or. AfTect mitigated by
_..__ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent propcrties and othcr property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
DATE:
COMMISSIONER:
Exhibit A
~~~
i~"
~
r~J
, "tl,
i Ii
i I)
i I, Ii
I'
i ! I
i~
,1
!.~
, I!
i 'I
,
,
ill
j
i
~
~
>-
00
~&
y-
~fi
II
~= I
" ", .
~ - iiS~ir
- -- ~- .-- -t.r ~ ,~s--
Ii
--~.,....,
, "
, "
, "
, '"
1 I"
:"' :1, !!']
l- ! ~~ lit }~~-l
l!ol ______~l
t<;'l~
~f-___J: \I
',~t----"-~!:L
t ~;~ [~~
l --"1 "'h IT
L------rl
___..__._---L..L-
"
0>
~~
68
~
,--
I
I
I
I
I
10
r:
II
I
I
I
I
o 1-
___.'-LL. ~~. T ~=~~~~,,11~~J,~~\
------.--- ___J~:._n_'__________ j~-~-- -..' n_ --'" .~." -_~--RE-''''~~~~:~~:~_~~~=-~-'--.'-
<
.
j
!
i
i
!
----
. ---,----
L_____________.._
.-----=-:..--=--~-=---=--'''''~;;::.'.'':~''':~:~-~-~~=--=-1'L--\ -
')
i
i
i
i
!
i
i
i
~ "
~~if: ~~ ;~ 0
6 0 c~ ~ ~
'~! " "
0 ,~ ~~ " > "~
i:l !~!i "3 z , ~~
" ,0 ~:Jl i'
~ '.e
OJ ,-, -, ., C
" 516 "
0 e' I, g ~@ ~ ~~~i ~~~ r;;
~ " ." ~g , ;:; "
:~ ~ ^ ~b~~ .'- ~
o. ;~ , ~~ z 5:5 z
,. ~~ . ."kl"o ~~~ 0
,. ~ti z "
8~ "- ~.?i~ g
~: ~ 0 ~ !?2~
~~ a H C >=I,,~@
ii 0' ;-,;0-<
::>=' ~: " ,1,,' ..,
" :; 6 ~
<;!<: ~!i! "I ~, ~ ~~~~ '00
~ . . ~:;: -< '"'o~
1, W[ , ~ ~ ;;1~ 0 ~~~ 1:::""
0.0 ~);:
! '8 ~~i
~~ " , < ~~
'I Al~
. . . om
Exhibit B ~~
- . ~~
~m
"1O""OOy\,..
'"
MESSIAH LUTHERAN
CHURCH
CONDITIONAL USE
SITE PLAN
MESSIAH LUTHERAN
CHURCH
D'lTA"'C=.oo
ceNSULTING CivilF.ngiIwccing
.............., '.L ..a.. Surveying&~g
JUU:""",
;!'J .os 2Gf
""LL
0102.'''.'''.00
1'..0
..,._...."""-....."",..........~.,,""
'''''"''-......~~''---."."
".,,,,,'...,,,"""".,,,,...,,
r"''''~'''' ''-'''''OJ''''''''
CONDITIONS OF APPRO V AL
CU -2008- AR-136 79
April 21, 2009
1. The Conditional Use is limited to what is shown on the Conceptual Site Plan,
identified as "Messiah Lutheran Church Conditional Use Conceptual Site Plan,"
prepared by RW A, Inc., and dated July 2008. The site plan noted is conceptual in
nature for Conditional Use approval only. The final design must be compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations.
2. Supplemental native plantings in all three strata shall be added to preserve areas
where the removal of non-native and/or nuisance vegetation creates open areas
with little or no native vegetation coverage.
3. The maximum area of the buildings on the site at build-out shall be limited to
65,569 square- feet.
4. If building height exceeds one story, the Iront yard setback of 75 feet shall be
increased by 25 feet for the additional floor; or the building shall be stepped back
to provide a vertical slope of two to one.
5. Irrespective of that shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, the property owner shall
provide a five-foot wide pedestrian connection to the site from the existing six-
foot sidewalk along Golden Gate Parkway, with the exact location to be
detennined by the County Transportation Planning Department at the time of Site
Development Plan review and approval, pursuant to the requirements ofthe LDC.
6. No schools or child care centers shall be permitted on the site. This shall not
preclude those accessory uses customarily associated with church uses, such as
Sunday school, or child care during worship services. church meetings and events,
etc.
Exhibit C
AGENDA ITEM 9-D
Co~"Y County
"",-""~~~"1_.___
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: MAY 7, 2009
SUBJECT:
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829; DAVIS RESERVE MPUD
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: Barry Goldmeier, President
Collier Davis LLC
250 Catalonia Ave, Suite 702
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Agent(s): Robert Andrea
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Ine.
3106 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) eonsider a rezone of
the subjeet site from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) zoning distriet for a projeet to be known as the Davis Reserve MPUD and approve an
Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement (AHDBA).
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subjeet PUD, consisting of 22.83 acres, is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection
of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and County Barn Road, in Seetion 8, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page)
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner proposed a mixed-use development that will consist of a maximum of 286 dwelling
units and a maximum of 35,000 square feet of commercial/office uses. An Affordable Housing
Density Bonus Agreement is proposed for this development that will set aside 20 percent (57
dwelling units) of the units as workforce housing units for a total bonus density of 5.0 dwelling
units per acre. This will result in a total project density of 12.5 units per acre.
The subject property is undeveloped at this time, and, according to the petitioner's Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), it is comprised of approximately 20 acres of upland vegetation and three
acres of wetland vegetation. No deviations from Land Development Code (LDC) are being sought
as part of this rezone petition.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 CCPC
Rev: 4/28/09
Page 1 of 24
ADVANCED HOUSING CORPORATION
Barry S. Goldmeier
President
250 Catalonia Avenue
Suite ooe 7 c1.....
Coral Gables. FL 33134
E-mail: barry@advancedhousing.com
Tel, (305) 461-2330
Fa" (305) 461-2346
~ ~J3D519
.(&11, (305) 84-35%
~~t5'~~~;;:i!i~~~i~b~;~'
'Y>~_ IlmI&I[SYAN 0 RE S S ll-f-"C--'::~"--
ROBERT D. PRITT
Board Certified City, County &. Local
Government Law
~
COASTAL
ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
INC
Civil Engineering
Survey & Mapping
(oastal Engineerinq
Real Estate Services
A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
Plal1ningService<,
850 PARK SIIOIU DRive
NAPIFS. FL 34103
239.649.2714
239.26L3659 FAX
2320 FIRST STREFT
FORT MYERS. Fl 33901
239.338.4214
239.337.0970 FAX
3106 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 341046137
ROBERT A. ANDREA
Planninu C0'l~ultOllt
Licensed RE Sales Associate
Mobile (23914387784
Ole [239) 6432324 Ex!. 134
Fax: [239) 643 4364
C:tnail: randrea:~h:ecifl.com
rpritt@ralaw.com
III COASTAL
ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
INC
Civil Engineering
Survey & Mapping
Coastal Engirleering
Real Estate Services
Planning Services
wwwcoastalengineering.com
CHISHO( M
JAMES BRIAN DELONY, P.E.
Project Engineer
Matthew Polak AlA
3106 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 341046137
bdelony(Cf'cecifl.com
Phone: (239) 643-2324 Ext 124
Fax: (239) 643-4364
mpolak{Wchisholmarchitects.com
o:ms (,(,].2070 f:lO'J.bf,1.(,090
VV'NW. ch ishnl mil rc h il<>cls.tom
1: TRANSPORTATION
K (ONSULTANTS,INC.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
SIGNAL SYSTEMS/DESIGN
Ted B. Treesh
President
o
[arthBalan(~
Ta,:,my Lyday. PMP
Senior Biologist
tlyday@earthbalancc.coll1
13881 PLANTATION ROAD, SUITE 11
FORTMYERS,FL 33912.4339
tbt@trtrans.net
OFFICE 239.278.3090
FAX 239.278.1906
2579 North Toledo Blade Blvd.
North Pon, FL 34289
94] .42G.787H
941.426.8778 tax
www.catthbalance.com
{)fficesln,
!JIII'{'n/,(}i"/ . N()rlhi'ort
li,I/'II>/U,,(" . lampll RdJ'
.'
o
::J
0.
u..
L'l~
w
i'
!~
w
Q ~ l::!
::J 3 "
0. < <
..
00.
:J ~ ~
a. ;::: it
I-
I.
:Ol~
I"
_____1
z
o
w-
t-!;(
<;;0
o
~
J..VM I..lIOIn
w::;; :>
o~
:::::l~
0.'
~
i
~
.
,
i
,
~
%
~
0'
::Jw
~~
.
u
0't'0ll1fU'il'l.u1lo"(l:J
,
~
i
:!
"!
u.
::;;
'"
J1V:l!>llilON /
I--
w
~
~ ~
(3
" ,
ili ~i
~=
-'"""'~
!
~ gd
i ~,e
! .!
.
,
,
,
!
~~
j
,
~
1
.
"-t
!!. ~l'
i "
1
';
1-
,
~l
:r
1
.
l
,
i
" ,I
I'
,
~
Ii 1'.3=-
. -;: ~i~
~
I
lK ~!
~
i
,
,
"
I
.
I
, ~
5 . "
. , !
. I
~ I
g
N
.
, ,
r:::J~
.
I
~~ ~
l-
L
i~
.
. ,
l
a..
<(
::E
(!)
Z
Z
o
N
'"
N
"'
'"
'"
0(
,
...
o
o
N
N
o
::J
0.
""
Z
o
....
....
W
0.
a..
<(
::E
z
o
I-
<(
()
o
....J
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Davis Boulevard, then the Terracina Grande, a multi-story Assisted Living Facility that is
part of the Glen Eagle development, with a zoning designation of PUD (Bretonne Park
PUD)
East: Seacrest School, with a zoning designation of CFPUD (Seacrest Upper and Lower School
CFPUD)
South: Seacrest School, with a zoning designation of CFPUD (Seacrest Upper and Lower School
CFPUD) and the Berean Baptist Church, with a zoning designation of Estates
West: County Barn Road, then the Napoli Condominiums, with a zoning designation of RMF-
6(4)
Aerial Photo
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The following information regarding the FLUM consistency
was provided by Comprehensive Planning Department staff in a memo dated April 12, 2009.
The subject property lies within the Urban land use designation area. It has also been designated
within its own location-specific Subdistrict within the Urban-Mixed-Use District since June 7,
2005 - the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28t09
Page 2 of 24
I
: r--:>---:--:-----.- -..-.~. - - - - -- ---
1 ~::::::::-:.:.,:: , ','.,' . '.' '.... . ..,'"
! t:-.' '. >:- ,',' . ~~_, .: ,:: ~~~~'"
\ L< .;/;:-<~f~~ ~I..)..
'" .---------'-o.-'-~...~.J I tl a: ~ : .
......---......~ tstib! /
..... ~-""~~~'~'~'", ~~~ (I. ,
" :. ~~.. "," 1.1.
I':. .~.. iY
:1 .. ....'
!: ~..."
G~ . "."'
~~, I.~ '~."
>t::d I .... .....
lU - r . III / .. .
~~I' ........~..
d'1>l '~." .....
)- ......,;......
\11 '. #........
:> ~- Ci .../---..:.
< . 1 ~ \.-:
D. ~~ ;.. J 1:-.
(SIU .....\ CL /..'
,'" ...4t.r.~.
.. ..... .... ~
.... ".~..'.~
.~."'.~'
.. ...
... .'. ".
.If! ....
:t:
:.:
:.:
...
I :.:
...
\11 :.:
I \ lLl,' "I'
I:, Jei. I :.:
I_.L~__ ~u_ ~..,._~~.:~:..'
I I :/ ~.- ~<fJJoI"< "..
II ~+I <o'l~:.:1
I ~ :.:'
I ..., -<j
I :.:' :~
: Il_____________J
;..
/'.-:-11,................... . I
::.)~.~~'!',~~.~~.~.~~.~.~..:: I' E~
c ::~:I:: :-:1" ~~ ~,'1
" . . .. . ~ V J
:::; w 'I: '.: . f- ~ -<< ""
: c (,.,;;"" 11 '."';;:1~'~I.'r': ~'II ~i!~ ;
I 0 . '0'" . <I: ~.];;;;~ ~
l--ccc--cc-1-_c- __ : _- ,,)____,,_ ___ :.: ~ S~2
_ _ _ _ _ t: _ . - -I -- -- - - ..'
--~-------- ..',
________ ______L___ .' "-
- --.------ "_.~-----_. .
......~~.....=-I
"'O'''''''''''':.lift:'''iii:.._~
.............
.,.OH'" ,'"''''
~H -,,,
eOOl ~]80DO
MJH 1ISIHX]
N'tld tj31SV~ lVnld]JNOJ and ]sn a]XI~
..."-",,,'.....,,,., .. ,,,.~ ]
""'-.."'.UI~."Oj'~.'"~~'
~;~i:~:~:m :::~"'
-
]A~]S]~ SIAva
--
~.,.~
0NlN7Z dld.l? ~.lS[X;l
._~7l'
.",.,. .
.."".. .
..,,"". .
,"...... ,
.. "...
.."".. .
...",. .
....Q:.;
.. I ..
. .", .
.+ .
lU ..
'->\11.
: (L lU ....
. lU (L . . .
"in '" ....
. (L -< .
'."Q. (fl "
. '"
'-:-:L('\
/'" . -~-~/.
" /
"..,."." .
-----
(}I
:~
2
~
~
g
u
<
2
~
~
~~ ~;oi
o
u
~~ +<+1
::::
"'ili
:=,;;i ~
2~~
,,"
. ~
-,
1
.
,-
--- z~
. :,
. .,
I
..
..'
..,
~
~
~
~
:,
B
./
'..,
I
/
.,
..,
. .
:-1
.,
w
"
.
> <
<"
>"
o
w.'
~o )Q
~~~~
~l
0.'
~I: :DDD
~..
, //77'7~/ /-Z-.Z..7/'-C]VOel NelVqJ..JNrO'7~Z
FLUE provisions state that, "this Subdistrict provides for development that incorporates traditional
neighborhood and mixed-use neighborhood design features, as well as recommendations of the
Community Character Plan (CCP). These design features include: pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-
friendly streets; a park, small plazas and other open spaces; and, a mix of residential and
neighborhood commercial uses. Integration of residential and commercial uses in the same
building is encouraged."
These Subdistrict requirements go on to state, "The commercial component shall be interconnected
with the residential component, and the commercial component shall be conveniently located to
serve residents in the nearby surrounding area. Pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided so
as to afJord access from neighboring communities to the commercial uses, residential
neighborhood(s), and open spaces and paths within the Subdistrict".
Two distinctly difJerent areas, tracts, or "components" - the Commercial component, and the
Residential component - make up this Subdistrict and distinctly different provisions govern the
development of each. Comprehensive Planning stafJ has assessed the proposal at length and
believes the Petitioner's dismissal of and disregard for certain Subdistrict provisions is inaccurate
mld misguided, based on the plain meaning of the Subdistrict provisions - is also an attempt to
distort the affordable and workforce housing provisions as they relate to density - and thus
inconsistent with the FLUE. More specifically, staff reads the Subdistrict provisions for this
Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development as expressly limiting residential development to 234 units,
resulting in a density of 10.25 units per acre, based upon a consistent application of the density
bonuses requested, It is proposed that 187 of these 234 dwellings would comprise the residential
component, while no less than 47 afJordable and workforce residential units would be located
above ground floor commercial establishments in mixed-use buildings.
Three significant issues are standing points of disagreement between the Petitioner's interpretation
and staff's assessment, as follows:
,f Whether the overall density is limited because additional density cannot be derived from
locating affordable-workforce housing in the commercial part of the PUD, where additional density
is already awarded;
,f Whether density bonuses can be derived from affordable-workforce housing units that are
not geographically located in the residential part of the PUD; and
,f Whether density blending, as residential density generated from calculations including the
commercial tract can be transferred to the residential part of the PUD.
StafJhas applied the provisions of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict,
as adopted. The Petitioner disagrees with stafJ's application of the provisions of this Subdistrict.
In an effort to change stafJ's position, the Petitioner asked the County Attorney's Office (CAO) to
provide an opinion regarding the Board of County Commissioners' (BCC) intentions based upon
Minutes of BCC deliberation on this Subdistrict, and the pertinent provisions in the Subdistrict.
After review and analysis of the Minutes and Subdistrict language, the CAO found them to be
inconclusive with respect to the BCC's intent. The Petitioner then requested that each of these
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28t09
Page 3 of 24
three points of disagreement be returned to the BCC to discuss the Commissioners' original intent,
as part of present consideration of the MPUD. Staff believes the Subdistrict text accurately reflects
the BCC's action in adopting it.
Policies 7.1 through 7.7 under Objective 7 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) were approved
on October 26, 2004. This Objective and its policies adopt certain "Smart Gro",th" provisions into
the FLUE.
Since the adoption of Objective 7 and its policies, as methods to encourage such planning, the
County has gone on to implement them further. The "future" land development regulations were
formulated, then adopted as FLUE provisions for this specific, Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road
Mixed-Use Subdistrict. This formulative process was one of Collier County's earliest
opportunities to apply more of the practices found in the Toward Belter Places - The Community
Character Plan jiJr Collier County, Florida. The Community Character Plan provides the County
with a policy document featuring the most useful aspects of Traditional Neighborhood Design
(TND), smart growth, trat1ic calming, new urbmlism and other contemporary planning practices.
These policies are implemented and referenced generally by this mixed-use Subdistrict's FLUE
provlslOns.
These adopted FLUE provislOns require that projects within this Subdistrict comply with the
following standards and criteria - and are restated here, followed by staff responses specific to the
Davis Reserve MPUD request.
This Subdistrict comprises approximately 22.83 acres and is located at the southeast comer of the
Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road intersection. The intent of the Subdistrict is to provide for a
development that incorporates traditional neighborhood and mixed-use neighborhood design
features, as wcll as recommendations of the Collier County Community Character Plan. These
include: pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly streets; a park, small plazas and other open
spaces; and, a mix of residential and neighborhood commercial uses. [ntegration of residential and
commercial uses in the same building is encouraged.
The commercial component shall be interconnected with the residential component, and the
commercial component shall be conveniently located to serve residents in the nearby surrounding
area. Pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided so as to afJord access from neighboring
communities to the commercial uses, residential neighborhood(s), and open spaces and paths
within the Subdistrict.
Projects within this Subdistrict shall comply with the following standards and criteria:
a. Commercial Component
I. The commercial component shall front County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard.
2. The frontage of the commercial component shall be no greater than twice its depth.
3. The commercial component shall be no larger than 5 acres in size and shall not exceed
45,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area.
4. No single commercial use in the commercial component shall exceed 15,000 square feet
of gross leasable floor area, except that a grocery store or supermarket shall not exceed 20,000
square feet of gross leasable floor area.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD Page 4 of 24
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28/09
5. Allowable commercial uses in the commercial component shall be limited to those uses
permitted in the C-I, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts as contained in the Collier County Land
Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-4 I, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of
this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005-25 adopted on June 27, 2005).
6. A common architectural theme shall be used for all commercial buildings.
7. Pedestrian connections shall be provided between all buildings.
8. Residential uses are allowed and may be located above commercial uses in the same
building or within an attached building. Residential density within the commercial component
is allowed at 4 dwelling units per acre and shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage in
the Subdistrict.
9. The maximum floor area ratio for commercial uses is 0.25.
b. Residential Component
1. Acreage to be used for calculating residential density in the residential component of the
Subdistrict is exclusive of the commercial component and of any acreage for a use with a
residential equivalency, such as an ALF-Adult Living Facility. Eligible density shall be as
determined by application of the Density Rating System.
2. Service roads and alleys shall be integrated into the residential component of the
Subdistrict.
c. General Criteria
I. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD,
2. Parking areas shall be internal to the site and be screened from County Barn Road and
Davis Boulevard.
3. Common stairs, breezeways or elevators may join individual buildings.
4. Trails and boardwalks may be provided in preservation areas for hiking and educational
purposes, if consistent with applicable local, state and federal environmental protection
regulations.
5. The Subdistrict shall include a park, small plazas and other types of open space.
6. The number and type of access points shall be limited, as deemcd appropriate during
review of subsequent development orders, so as to minimize disruption of traffic flow on
Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road.
7. Development within the Subdistrict shall be encouraged to use a grid street system, or
portion thereof, so as to provide multiple route alternatives.
8. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access to the Subdistrict shall be provided.
9. A vehicular interconnection shall be provided between the residential and commercial
components of the Subdistrict.
10. Both pedestrian and bicycle interconnections shall be provided between the residential
and commercial components of the Subdistrict.
I I. A minimum of 91 residential units shall be developed in the Subdistrict (this reflects the
Density Rating System's base density of four dwelling units per acre, applied to the total site
acreage). For the project's total density - whether it is the minimum of91 dwelling units, or a
greater arnount as allowed by the Density Rating System density bonus provisions and
approved via rezoning - a minimum of ten percent (IO percent) must be afJordable-workforce
housing units provided for those earning less than or equal to 80 percent of the median
household income for Collier County and another minimum of ten percent (IO percent) must
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7,2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28t09
Page 5 of 24
be afJordable-workforce housing units provided for those earning greater than 80 percent, but
no greater than 100 percent, of the median household income for Collier County.
12. The rezone ordinance implementing this Subdistrict shall set forth a provision to insure
construction of this minimum number of dwelling units, and type of units, such as a cap on the
commercial floor area that may be issued a certificate of occupancy prior to construction of the
minimum number, and type, of residential units.
The Residential Component provisions for this Subdistrict state, "Acreage to be used for
calculating residential density in the residential component of the Subdistrict is exclusive of the
commercial component and of any acreage for a use with a residential equivalency, such as an
Adult Living Facility (ALF). Eligible density shall be as determined by application of the Density
Rating System." This criterion is not met in Petitioner's GMP Analysis. Staff provides the
following analysis:
Under the FLUE Density Rating System and specific Subdistrict provisions, the subject property
qualifies for a maximum of 234 dwelling units (IO.25 DU/ A); 286 DUs are requested (I 2.5 DU/ A).
The Density Rating System analysis fi:lr the proposed Davis Reserve project is as follows:
4 DUlA ~ Base Density (using 17.83 residential acres)
3 DUlAc Proximity to Mixed-Use Activity Center (using 17.83 residential acres) ~
.1 DU/A """ Access to 2 or more Co]lectorJ~9ads (using 17.83J~sidential acre~~___
Subtotal ~ Awarded by Density Rating System
71.32 units
53.49 units
___.__ 17.83 units
142.64 units
4 DU/A:::..: Mixed-Use Component Densi1]0l1owance (using 22.83 acres !!ross) =
Total residential units allowed ~ 233.96 (rounded up) C'
91.32 units
234 units
Affordable and Workforce Housing Units Required (20 percent ot'total)]
47 units
The Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict clearly expresses the provision,
"Residential density in the residential component is exclusive of the commercial component... "
Staff advises the CCPC and BCC to consider that residential density not located in the residential
component is not allowed at the same density-as the adopted Subdistrict language is undisputable,
as set forth above, therefore statT's opinion is the applicant's proposed density is inconsistent with
the GMP.
In this Subdistrict, density is awarded for providing mixcd uses in the commercial component, not
[primarily] for providing afl()rdable-workforce housing. As a condition of awarding this density,
an amount of affordable-workforce housing is required. It could be viewed that awarding this
density for mixed use provides reasonable compensation for requiring affordable-workforce
housing. It ti)lIows that density bonuses for providing affordable-workforce housing are not
additionally awarded.
Affordable-workforce housing is not required in the residential component, so bonuses for
providing such housing are available through the Density Rating System. This Petition however,
does not propose to locate afJordable-workforce housing in the residential component. It follows
then, that no afJordable-workforce housing-related bonuses would be awarded.
The Petitioner intends to locate all
component, and requests that Collier
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28t09
their affordable-workforce housing in the commercial
County award density bonuses for doing so - in clear
Page 6 of 24
contradiction to the ineligibility of bonuses through the Density Rating System in the commercial
area. Moreover, the Petitioner intends to locate only the affordable-workforce residential units in
the commercial component, and none of the bonus units. This transfer, or "density blending", also
clearly contradicts density blending provisions and Community Character Plan design directions
[encouraging a blend of densities, and a range of housing prices and types, in a "delicate gradient"
irom center to edge] generally, and policies of this Subdistrict specifically. [emphasis added]
The Commercial Component provisions for this Subdistrict state, "Residential uses are allowed
mld may be located above commercial uses in the same building or within an attached building.
Residential density within the commercial component is allowed at 4 dwelling units per acre and
shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage in the Subdistrict."
This criterion is met. Staff provides the following analysis:
4 DU/A = Mixed-Use Component Allowance (using 22.83 gross acres) =
Commercial Component residential unit calculation = 91.32 (rounded down) =
91.32 units
91 units
This criterion allows, but does not specifically require, that the density generated from the
commercial tract be developed on the commercial tract, though staff believes such a requirement is
implicit. The Petitioner proposes to build 57 residential units on the commercial mixed-use tract
with the balance being transierred to the residential tract.
The General Criteria provisions for this Subdistrict state, "A minimum of 91 residential units shall
be developed in the Subdistrict (this reflects the Density Rating System's base density of four
dwelling units per acre, applied to the total site acreage). For the project's total density - whether it
is the minimum of91 dwelling units, or a greater mTIount as allowed by the Density Rating System
density bonus provisions and approved via rezoning - a minimum often perccnt (10 percent) must
be affordable housing units and another minimum of ten percent (10 percent) must be workforce
housing units." This specific provision for this Subdistrict has been updated through EAR-based
amendments and now reads, "A minimum of 91 residential units shall be developed in the
Subdistrict (this reflects the Density Rating System's base density of four dwelling units per acre,
applied to the total site acreage). For the project's total density - whether it is the minimum of 91
dwelling units, or a greater amount as allowed by the Density Rating System density bonus
provisions and approved via rczoning - a minimum often percent (10 percent) must be afJordable-
workforce housing units provided for those earning less than or equal to 80 percent of the median
household income for Collier County and another minimum of ten percent (10 percent) must be
afJordable-workforce housing units provided for those earning greater than 80 percent, but no
greater than 100 percent, of the median household income for Collier Countv." [EAR-based
amendments are underlined.]
This criterion - in either form - is not met. The afJordable housing density bonus does not apply,
as the afJordable housing provision for this Subdistrict is a requirement - that 20 percent of the
total residential unit count be composed of 10 percent affordable and IO percent workforce housing
units. Further, affordable or workforce housing units are not proposed to be located in the
residential component of the MPUD.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28t09
Page 7 of 24
Commercial component residential unit calculation = 91.32 (rounded down) =
Residential Component residential unit calculation = 142.64 (rounded up) =
Maximum number ofresidential units allowed =
91 units
143 units
234
This density calculation limits development to 10.25 dwelling units per acre- 2.25 du/ac fewer
than the density proposed by the Petitioner.
Affordable and Workforce Housing Units Required (20 percent of total)] = 47
The Davis Reserve PUDZ proposal is consistent with the amount of affordable-workforce housing
units being provided only, not with the interpretation of how afJordable-workforcc housing density
bonuses are applied. Petitioner intends to provide 57 affordable or workforce residences (20
percent of 286) to achieve a bonus density of 6.28 units per acre.
The Genera] Criteria provisions for this Subdistrict state:
The rezone ordinance imvlementin:< this Subdistrict shall set forth a vrovision to insure
construction of this minimum number oj dwelling units [91 total). and type 0/ units [9
affordable housing, 9 workforce housingj, such as a cap on the commercial floor area that
may be issued a certificate oj occupancy prior to construction of the minimum number, and
type, ojresidential units. [Underlining emphasis added]
Petitioner intends to develop more residential units than this minimum number, but contends that
such a "provision to insure construction of this minimum" is unnecessary. Staff notes such a
provision is not elective - it is a requiremcnt of thc Subdistrict.
The proposed PUD Document has rcplaccd the typical Statement of Compliance with a "GMP
Analysis".
Not all revisions comply with previous staff recommendations provided in previous review
stages. Comprehensive Planning maintains its asscssment that the Petitioner's chosen approach
is a distortion of the Subdistrict density provisions and inconsistent with the FLUE. The
dwelling unit figure of 286 provided by the Petitioner rel1ects an incorrect and inaccurate
interpretation of Subdistrict provisions. Density bonuses should not be awarded for providing
the required afJordable or workforce housing units. Nor should bonuses be awarded where
development already takes advantage of othcr added density specific to this Subdistrict -
awarded for developing a mixed-use project. This point of disagreemcnt is a policy issue to be
considered by the CCPC, with the Board making the final decision.
Revisions as necessary will be made to PUD documents and the Affordable Workforcc Housing
Density Bonus Agreement following the BCC decision on this issue.
Subdistrict provisions require a condition be written that building permits shall not be issued for
more than a limited number of squarc fcet of commercial floor area prior to issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy for a specific number of dwelling units, inclusive of affordable and
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28t09
Page 8 of 24
workforce housing. Petitioner prefers a limitation that is not connected with development of the
project's commercial component, as all development is proposed to occur in a single phase.
Transportation Element: This project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the
Transportation Element of the GMP. The impacts to the roadway network have been analyzed
using the two percent-two percent-three percent significance test, and the projects' significant
impacts are listed below.
Davis Boulevard Impacts: The first link of Davis Boulevard that is impacted by the project is Link
15, between County Barn and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The project generates 80 PM peak hour,
peak direction trips, which represents a significant impact of 3.1 I percent. This segment of Davis
Boulevard currently has 700 remaining trips, is currently at LOS "D," and is located within the East
Central Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) as reflected by the 2008 Draft
Annual Update and inventory Report (AUIR).
Moving Easterly, the second link of Davis Boulevard that is significantly impacted is Link 16.1,
from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Radio Road. The project generates 55 PM peak hour, peak
direction trips, which represents a significant impact of 5.29 percent. This segment of Davis
Boulevard currently has a deficit of 30 trips, is currently at LOS "F", but is located within the East
Central TCMA as reflected by the 2008 Draft A UlR.
The subsequent link on Davis Boulevard between Radio Road and CR-951, which is currently
failing but is under agreement with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to be expanded in
2009, is not shown to be significantly impacted in the project TIS.
Davis Boulevard impacts west of the project that require analysis include Link 14, from County
Barn to Lakewood Boulevard. The project generates 65 PM peak hour, peak direction trips, which
represents a significant impact of 2.67 percent. This segment of Davis Boulevard currently has 662
remaining trips, is currently at LOS "D", and is located within the East Central TCMA as reflected
by the 2008 Draft AUlR.
Continuing Westerly, the subsequent link on Davis Boulevard between Lakewood Boulevard and
Airport-Pulling Road is not shown to be significantly impacted in the TIS.
County Barn Impacts: The project significantly impacts Link 10, County Barn Road between Davis
Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock. The project generates 120 PM peak hour, peak direction
trips, which represents a significant impact of 13.95 percent. However please note, this level of
impact is found only between the project's County Barn driveway and the County Barn/Davis
Boulevard intersection. The link impact on this project is 25 trips, representing a significant impact
of2.91 percent. This segment of County Barn Road currently has 4J remaining trips, is currently at
LOS "D". This segment is not located within the East Central TCMA as reflected by the 2008 Draft
AUlR. The developer has proposed mitigation to accommodate the project impacts to this
concurrency segment.
Santa Barbara Impacts: The impact to Santa Barbara Boulevard (North of Davis Boulevard) that
requires analysis is Link 78, between Davis Boulevard and Radio Road. The project generates 25
PM peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a significant impact of 0.77 percent. This
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28/09
Page 9 of 24
segment of Davis Boulevard currently has 1,905 remaining trips, is currently at LOS "B", and is
located within the East Central TCMA as ret1ected by the 2008 Draft AUIR.
The segment of Santa Barbara Boulevard, South of Davis Boulevard, was not under contract to be
constructed at the time of the initial review, and capacity could not yet be counted for analysis by
this project. However, the project construction has begun subsequent to the submittal of this
petition. Staff analysis of the nine PM Peak Hour project trips (total, non-directional) indicate this
project will not have a significant impact on the future Santa Barbara Extension (anticipated to have
a capacity greater than 3,000 trips, for a 0.3 percent or less impact). This roadway segment will not
be located within the East Central TCMA.
Rattlesnake Hammock Impacts: Subscqucnt links on Rattlesnake Hammock that required analyses
in accordance with the two percent-two percent-three percent significm1ce test are not shown to be
significantly impacted in the TIS.
TCMA Analysis: As note in exhibit "I" of the 2008 Draft AUIR, 90.47 percent ofthe lane miles in
the East Central Traffic Concurrency Management Area [TCMA] are shown to operate at, or above,
the minimum LOS standard. A minimum of 85 percent is required.
Transportation Mitigation satisfying Policy 5.1: The petitioner has proposed mitigation in the form
of Developer Commitments in the PUD document. The proposed mitigation consists of a monetary
contribution to Collier County that would fund Intelligent Traffic Management System [ITMS]
signalization upgrades at two intersections located on a hurricane route within the TCMA. The
developer has also committed to contribute his fair share towards intersection improvements at
Davis and Santa Barbara Boulevards, and has agreed that no Ccrtificate of Occupancy (CO) shall be
issued on the project until the substantial completion of Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension from
Davis to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Thc completion of the Santa Barbara Extension is
anticipated to result in an increase to available capacity on County Barn Road.
If capacity does not bccomc available on County Barn Road, Transportation Planning staff has
agreed that thc developer may elect to move forward with CO applications without available
capacity by either constructing network improvements at the intersection of County Barn Road and
Davis Boulevard, or by contributing further additional monies toward ITMS signalization at two
additional intersections on Davis Boulevard.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): In accordance with Objective 2.1
(d), until the County's Watershed Management Plans are completed, all development located within
areas identified on Figure 1 within the CCME (sec the EAC Staff Report) shall be evaluated to
determine impacts to natural wetlands, tlowways, or sloughs. Thc Objective also states that the
County shall requirc the applicant to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, tlowways, or
sloughs or, when not possible, to ensure any impact is minimized and compensated for by providing
the same conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact.
The evaluation provided in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identified three isolated
wetlands within the project site, two of which will he preserved as part of a larger contiguous
preserve. The third, due to its size, proximity to Davis Boulevard, and location within the project
site, will be directly impacted by development as allowed by Policy 6.2.4. As required by Objective
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7. 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28t09
Page 10 of24
2.1 (f), all necessary state and federal environmental permits will be required prior to issuance of a
final development order.
Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP states "All canals,
rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local
water quality standards".
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of
stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does
not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of
fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system". This project is consistent with the objectives of
policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site
by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow
attenuation during storm events.
The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation
& Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons:
Twenty-five percent (25 percent) of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on-site and be
protected by a permanent conservation easement prohibiting further development. The preservation
of native vegetation includes canopy, understory and ground cover emphasizing the largest
contiguous area possible.
The applicant is proposing to use the preserve area to store treated stormwater when run-off exceeds
one and one-half inches. The proposed preserve area is comprised solely of jurisdictional wetlands
and uplands with hydric soils. Hydrological indicators show that seasonal high water levels
occasionally pond approximately 12 inches above surface within the wetlands on site, and based on
the site elevations provided in the EIS, would also inundate the uplands on the property during this
time. Based on soil investigations, typical wet season water level is about 6 to 12 inches below
surface. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1 (5) (b), receipt of treated storm water discharge into
preserves is allowed provided such use does not result in adverse impacts to naturally occurring
native vegetation or hann to any listed species. Policy 6.1.1 (5) (b) requires discharge of treated
stormwater to preserves having wetlands to meet water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 62-
302 F .A.C. Based on the information by the applicant, staff find the project to be consistent with
Policy 6.1.1 (5) (b). Final design of the project will be permitted through the SFWMD when the
project comes in for final development order.
Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans are required at the time of
Site Development Plan/construction plan submittal. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1 (6), the
management plan shall include methods to address control and treatment of invasive exotic species,
fire management, storm water management, and maintenance of permitted facilities. Preserve areas
shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Prohibited exotic vegetation shall be removed from the entire
development during construction and the site shall be maintained free of prohibited exotics in
perpetuity,
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28/09
Page 110124
Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site
Development Plan/construction plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum planting
area requirement pursuant to Policy 6.1.7 and the LDC.
Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to
Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final
local development order permitting site improvements (Site Development Plan/construction plans).
As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for
impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this
shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural
functions of wetlands within this area, except for wetlands that are part of a Watershed Management
Plan preserve area,
In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, rcquired prescrvation areas are identificd on the PUD master plan.
Allowable uses within the preserve arcas are included in thc PUD document. Uses within preserve
areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation,
erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation.
Wildlife surveys for listed species in accordancc with Policy 7.1.2 are included in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species are
required at the timc of Site Development Plan/construction plan submittal, where applicable. No
listed wildlife species have bcen identified on the project site.
The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been
satisfied. The Environmental Review staff has also deemed this petition consistent with the CCME.
GMP Conclusion:
The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning
to MPUD. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a linding of consistency or
inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM
designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is
inconsistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion regarding
density. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Elemcnt as previously
discussed. Environmental staff is recommcnding that thc petition be found consistent with the
CCME. However, with Comprehensive Planning statrs rccommendation that the petition be found
inconsistent with the FLUMlFLLJE, Zoning staff cannot support the petition unless the BCC makes
a policy decision determining that density provisions should be interpreted in compliance with the
petitioner's contentions. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found inconsistent
with the overall GMP unless the BCC adopts a policy to deem the density calculations provided by
the petitioner are consistent use within the GMP subdistrict, or the petitioners reduce the densitv in
compliance with the interpretation provided bv Comprehensive Planning staff.
ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28t09
Page 12 0124
determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in LDC (LDC) Sections 10.02. I3
and 1O.02.I3.B.5. 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 turn use the criteria to
support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are provided as part of the Zoning
Review listed below.
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petitIOn and the PUD
documents to address any environmental concerns. This petition was required to submit an
Environment Impact Statement (EIS) and was heard by the Environmental Advisory Commission
(EAC) on February 4, 2009. A copy of the EAC staff report is included in the back up material.
Please refer to that document for environmental review details.
Transportation Review: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the GMP and the LDC. The PUD document contains numerous transportation commitments
that the petitioner and Transportation Planning staff has agreed upon to reach a point wherein
Transportation Planning statT can recommend approval of this project. Some of the commitments
are listed below:
~ If capacity does not become available on County Barn Road, Transportation Planning staff
has agreed that the developer may elect to move forward with Certificate of Occupancy
applications without available capacity by either constructing network improvements at the
intersection of County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard, or by contributing further additional
monies toward ITMS signalization at two additional intersections on Davis Boulevard.
~ Payment in lieu for sidewalks and bike lanes for County Barn Road frontage shall be
required.
~ Fair share contribution towards the intersection improvements at Santa Barbara Boulevard
and Davis Boulevard.
Refer to PUD Exhibit E. I for the full list of Transportation commitments.
Utility Review: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following:
The Statement of Utility Provisions was been included as required. This project is located within the
Collier County Water-Sewer District boundary, and it will be subject to application for and
conditions associated with a Water and Sewer availability letter from the Collier County Utilities
Division. Service information: A 16-inch water main exists on both Davis Boulevard and County
Barn Road that can provide potable water to the project; also a 24-inch force main exists on both
Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road.
Emerzencv Manazemenl Review: Emergency Management staff indicated that they have no
concerns or outstanding issues with this project.
Parks and Recreation Review: Parks and Recreation staff requested in 2005 review comments that
the developer provide a Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) certified commercial grade playground designed for 2-12 year old
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD Page 13 of24
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28t09
children for use of residents and their guests that should be located within a project common area.
Parks and Recreation staff asked that the playground area be operational before the issuance of any
certificates of occupancy for any residential units. The developer has opted not to provide this
playground. This issue has arisen in at least one other PUD rezoning, i.e., Cirrus Pointe RPUD. In
that petition the petitioner objected to the stipulation noting that the playground was not an LDC
mandated requirement.
Housinf! Review: In a letter dated December 2 I, 2007 (a copy of this letter is included in the
application material), the applicant is requesting a waiver of all impact fees, excluding Road Impact
Fees. The County does not currently offer this incentive. The petitioner's suggests the County
waive $5,084,959 in impact fees for this project. The Affordable-Workforce Housing Trust fund
does not have sufficient funds to cover this request. Additionally, it is not possible to predict the
amount of funds available for future deferrals under the current program. Statl does not support this
impact fee waiver request. However this issue will be addressed by the BCC as a separate agenda
item in the future using the process wherein such matters are decided; this is not a zoning issue to be
addressed as part of the current rczone proposal.
The petitioner's AHDBA, as discussed in the GMP section proposed to provide 57 affordable
workforce housing units for a bonus dcnsity of 2.28 units per acre.
Zoninf! Review: Statl has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities and/or densities; the
development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass;
building location and orientation; thc amount and type of open space and its location; and traffic
generation/attraction of thc proposed uses. The total amount of allowable commercial square
footage, 35,000 square feet, is in compliance with the limitations of the Davis Boulevard/County
Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict. A minimum floor area of 600 square feet is proposed for the
townhomc and multi-family units, with thc front and side yard setbacks to be measured from either
cxtcrnal rights-of~way or PU D boundaries as appropriate. A five-foot rear setback is proposed for
all building types. Actual residential, mixed use and commercial building heights are not to exceed
65 feet with zoncd height not to cxceed 55 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." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the
Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional
criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are
designated as PUD. [Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in non-italicized font]:
Rezone Findings:
J. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals. objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of"the GM?
As notcd in the GMP Consistency portion of this report, the proposed uses and development
standards would generally further the goals and objectives of the FLUE and the applicable portions
of the CCME and the Transportation Element. However, Comprehensive Planning staff and the
applicant do not agree upon how density should be calculated for this project. Unless the applicant
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7. 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28t09
Page 14 of 24
reduces the density to be congruous with the interpretation of Comprehensive Planning staff or the
BCC makes a finding in support of the petitioner's interpretation, staff could not otTer a
recommendation of GMP consistency for this project.
2. The existing land use paUern.
As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the neighborhood's
existing land use pattern is characterized by Davis Boulevard to the north then the Terracina
Grande, a rcsidential complex that is part of the Glen Eagle development, with a PUD zoning
designation; to the east is Seacrest School with a zoning dcsignation of CFPUD; the school also
shares a portion of the southern boundary with this project. The remainder of the southern boundary
is shared with the Berean Baptist Church with a zoning designation of Estates. To the west is
County Barn Road then the Napoli Condominiums with a zoning designation of RMF-6(4). The
uses and development standards proposed should be compatible with the surrounding area
especially since the nearby residential uses are separated by major roadways-County Barn Road
and Davis Boulevard; staff is of the opinion that this project can be deemed consistent with GMP
FLUE Policy 5.4.
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 the proposed rezone is
consistent with the GMP Subdistrict that was adopted specifically for this tract of land for the uses
proposed, however the density issue must be resolved by the BCC to ensure that a more intense
project is not allowed via rczoning than what the BCC anticipated during the GMP amendment
process for this site. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was fully aired to the public as required
by the LDC at that time.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on
the property proposedfor change.
As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the eXlstmg district
boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed PUD zoning boundaries follow the property
ownership boundaries and coincide with the GMP subdistrict boundaries. The location map on
page 2 of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject parcel.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
The proposed change is warranted based upon the relatively recently created Subdistrict designation
for the subject property. The proposed rezoning brings the subject property into compliance with
that designation because it establishes the buffering requirements associated with the zoning of the
tract and establishes the uses contemplated in that Subdistrict.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood
The County's land use policies that are 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
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28t09
Page 15 of 24
proposed rezone is consistent with the County's land use policies that are ret1ected by the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP if a policy decision is rendered by the BCC to support the
proposed density or the petitioner revises the proposed density to be consistent with staff s
interpretation. Also, the PUD document provides assurances that the site improvements will
include adequate landscaping, setbacks and butTering for the development. Therefore, staff is of the
opinion that the proposed change will not adversely influence Jiving conditions in the neighborhood.
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 atfect public safety.
Based upon the Transportation Planning staff review, this project could create or excessively
increase traffic congestion on Davis Boulevard or County Barn Road; therefore staff has
incorporated stipulations in Exhibit E of the PUD document that mitigate the traffic impacts..
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
Appropriate storm water management has been provided on the Master Plan to address this issue as
part of the rezone process. The proposed development should not create drainage or surface water
problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards as part of the
local development order process that are designed to reduce the risk of t100ding 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 seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The PUD document provides adequate property development regulations to ensure light and air
should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the
locations of proposed preserve and open space areas should further ensure light and air should not
be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. Additionally, roadways separate this project from adjacent
uses on two boundaries-Davis Boulevard to thc north and County Barn Road to the west.
10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external
to the subject property, Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however
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 properly in accordance with existing regulations.
PUDZ-2004-AR.6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28/09
Page 16 of 24
Properties around this property are already 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 property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the
improvement of adjacent properties.
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 does not comply with the GMP unless the BCC makes a supporting
finding for the project's density or the petition is revised to be in keeping with staffs density
interpretation. In light of this fact, the proposed change could be construed to 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.
The subject property can be used in accordance with it Estates zoning district, however, with the
adoption ofthe Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict, it is more appropriate to
rezone the property to allow uses in compliance with that Subdistrict. As the property is surrounded
by other urban-type uses and is located within an Urban area of the GMP, the proposed uses (not
necessarily the proposed density) would be compatible with the existing pattern of development and
the GMP.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
The proposed development complies with the GMP subdistrict's requirements for the uses
proposed, however the density issues remains unresolved. The GMP is a policy statement which has
evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the
urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards
and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the
community if the BCC renders a supporting decision regarding the petition's density calculations, or
the density is reduced in compliance with staffs interpretation.
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.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD Page 17 of 24
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28t09
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and
this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development
regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building
permit process.
17. The impact of development on Ihe availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GM? and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County adequate publicfacilities ordinance.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria 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 GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by
county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning
process and those staff persons have concluded that no LOS will be adversely impacted because the
proposed development, if approved subject to staff recommendations.
18. Such other fc/ctors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall
deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
PUD Findings
1. The suitability of the areafc)r 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 type and pattern of development proposed should not have a negative impact upon any physical
characteristics of the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and
other utilities, Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county
regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00
Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract. or other instrumenfs. or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may
relate to arrangements or provisions to be lIIade fiJr the continuing operation and maintenance of
such areas and facilities that are not 10 be provided or maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. The
MPUD document and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for
the continuing operation and maintenance of common areas.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and
policies of the GMP (GMP).
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD Page 18 of 24
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28t09
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives
and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis,
staff is of the opinion that this petition cannot be found consistent with the overall GMP as
stipulated in this staff report.
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.
The development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this petition are
designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses and the use mixture within
the project itself. Staff believes a finding that this petition is compatible, both internally and
externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding uses would be appropriate once
the density issue is resolved. Additionally, the Development Commitments contained in the PUD
document provide additional requirements the developer will have to fulfill.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum 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.
Although development of the project has not yet commenced, the tImmg or sequence of
development in light of concurrency requirements does not appear to be a significant problem for
this project based upon the transportation commitments contained in the PUD document and
discussed in considerable detail in the GMP Transportation section of this report. In summary, the
petitioner has proposed mitigation in the form of Developer Commitments in the PUD document.
The proposed mitigation consists of a monetary contribution to Collier County that would fund
Intelligent Traffic Management System [ITMS] signalization upgrades at two intersections located
on a hurricane route within the TCMA. The developer has also committed to contribute his fair
share towards intersection improvements at Davis and Santa Barbara, and has agreed that no
Certificate of Occupancy (CO) shall be issued on the project until the substantial completion of
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension from Davis to Rattlesnake. The completion of the Santa
Barbara Extension is anticipated to result in an increase to available capacity on County Barn Road.
If capacity does not become available on County Barn, Transportation Planning staff has agreed that
the developer may elect to move forward with CO applications without available capacity by either
constructing network improvements at the intersection of County Barn aJld Davis, or by
contributing further additional monies toward ITMS signalization at two additional intersections on
Davis Boulevard.
In addition, the project's development must be in compliance with all other applicable concurrency
management regulations when development approvals are sought. The sunsetting provision of the
LDC will also apply to this development regardless of the capacity issue.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28t09
Page 190124
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
Please refer to PUD finding number 6 above.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such re6TUlations 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.
This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and
deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the
most similar conventional zoning district. The development standards in this PUD are similar to
those standards and the petitioner is not seeking any deviations.
The petitioner's agent has however, indicated that he wishes to seek relicf from impact fee
payments and will be petitioning the Board in separate action if this rezone petition is approved.
Although related to this rezone, waiver of or reduction of impact fees are addressed in separate
action by the BCC. Staff only mentions the issue so that the issue will be known.
The only outstanding issue for this petition is the GMP density issuc and a BCC policy decision
whether that use is, or is not, consistent with applicable subdistrict. Staff and the petitioners' agent
are not in agreement on this issue as explained in the GMP discussion of this report. Staff has
included a stipulation to address the concerns.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC heard this petition on February 4, 2009, and votcd 8 to 0 to forward this petition to the
CCPC and the BCC with a recommendation of Approval subject to the Storm water Management
stipulation contained in the EAC staffreport as shown bclow:
The petitioner is required to obtain a SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) or Surface
Water Management permit prior to Site development Plan approval by Collier County.
Additionally, the EAC added the following stipulation:
This project shall be subject to EAC approval prior to approval ofthefirst Site Development Plan
or final plat/construction plans. Specifically, the developer shall ensure the following:
1. That the site plans demonstrate that the hydrology of the preserve area shall be maintained or
enhanced; and
2. Storm water shall not be discharged below the existing seasonal high water level.
Thc petitioner has incorporated the stipulations into the PUD document Exhibit E.2 that were added
by the EAC, however the EAC staff report stipulation is already a requirement, thus to include that
stipulation in the PUD document would be redundant. Staff has been directed to remove
rcdundancies from PUD documents therefore that stipulation was not added. .
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7,2009 eepe
Rev: 4/28t09
Page 20 of 24
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
This petitioner has held three Neighborhood Information Meetings. The first NIM was held on
March 2, 2005, and the second was held on May 29, 2007 and the third on June 30, 2008. The
synopses of those meetings are provided below.
The agent/applicant held the first NIM at the Unity of Naples Church, Fellowship Hall, 2000 Unity
Way, Naples on March 2, 2005. Five persons other than the applicant's team and county staff
attended. The applicant and agent began the presentation with comments referencing the area to a
GMP Amendment for mixed-use sub-district Davis Blvd./County Barn Road "neighborhood
commercial" center that was approved by the BCC: CP-2004-5 and is currently being reviewed by
the Department of Community Affairs. The applicant stated that the conceptual project shown on
the graphics was to follow the "Community Character" plan recommendations with possible joint
shared access with the Baptist church, be bike/pedestrian friendly and include up to 45,000 sq. ft. of
retail/office in a "traditional" neighborhood design, including residential over commercial, parking
in rear of buildings facing and near streets. The applicant also went on to state the following points:
Three and 2 bedroom residential town-homes
3 stories buildings
4 stories total including parking
Multi-family, no single family units
34- 35 "Semi -affordable" loft condos
Up to 248 residential units, then 280-290 units stated later
Developer committed to sidewalks per code
Access through courtyards
Ingress, egress at Davis Blvd and County Barn Roads
Buffering requirements negotiated with Seacrest School.
Concern stated by Falling Waters resident Mr. Simonelli, over trafjjc impacts, saying that Falling
Waters and Countryside have asked FDOT for traffic signal and stated his name and address for
public notice as Mr. Simonelli, Falling Waters Master Association, 7200 Davis Boulevard, Naples,
34104.
Mr. Peter Costello of Glen Eagle questioned whether or not the proposal would include a
Homeowners Association, to which the applicant responded yes.
Project planner, Mike Bosi advised the applicant and agent to hold another NIM based on the new
information; agent for the applicant agreed stating "we'll come back and do another meeting; we've
made some amendments since the required advertising".
The second NIM was held on May 29, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. at the Berean Baptist Church. Thirty two
persons signed the attendance sheet that was provided. Residents of Glen Eagle and Falling Waters
were both represented at the meeting as well as residents or persons from other areas. Attendees
asked about the proposed density and the intensity of the commercial uses and about the intended
preservation and buffering amounts, Concerns were raised about the proposed affordable housing
component and the density proposed in the overall project citing concerns that the project would be
too concentrated. A discussion ensured among the attendees regarding personal experiences relative
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28t09
Page 21 of 24
to affordable housing. Questions were raised and answered by the petitioner's agent about Davis
Boulevard improvements and about the projcct's proposed acccss on Davis Boulevard. Concerns
were raised about the price points mentioned by the petitioner. Responding to an inquiry about how
the project would look, the petitioner mentioned several projects of his in other locales. The
petitioner presented drawings to show what the project might look like upon completion. Staff
notcd that these drawings would not be binding upon the petitioncr.
The pastor of Berean Baptist Church inquired about alcohol service within the project given the
project's proximity to a school and a church. The petitioner noted that the project would need to
comply with the county regulations regarding thc separation distance requirements for alcohol use
and sale.
In response to audience inquiries about the proposed size of the units, the petitioner indicated that
he could not commit to any specific measurements at this time, but it was his intention as of today
to provide larger units. In rcsponse to questions rcgarding the number of stories proposed, the
petitioner's agent indicated that thc residential units would be thrcc story structures.
A discussion ensured regarding which residents would be noticed about upcoming hearings. The
petitioner's agcnt explained that signs would be posted, an ad would be placcd in the newspaper,
and letters would be sent to those property owners within the distance required by the LDC.
Neighbors were encouraged to contact the staff with specific questions. The meeting ended with
the petitioner's attorney stating that the petitioner's team had already met with some property
owners' associations and would be happy to meet with others if it was requested.
The third NIM was duly noticcd by the applicant and held on June 30, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. at the
Berean Baptist Church. Thirteen pcoplc from the public attended, as wcll as the applicant's team
(Shaun Malarkey and Robert Andrea of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc, Barry Goldmeier
property owner along with County staff-Kay Deselcm).
Shaun Malarkey with Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing the applicant presented an
overview of the requestcd rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned
Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district.
Of those who had questions or concerns, the applicant's consultants responded as follows:
I. The participants were concerned with thc increase of traHic on both County Barn Road and
Davis Blvd, which Shaun (with Coastal Engineering) responded, that this project can not move
forward until they received a passed traffic report from Ihe County. He also mentioned that a new
traffic report, by the County, has shown a reduction in traffic on both roadways.
2. Therc was also concern regarding the right turn only onto Davis Blvd., which would then force
more vehicles to make U-turns in front of the Countryside entrance and asked if a traffic light could
be installed at that location. Kay Deselem (county stat!) responded that that would be a decision the
Transportation Division would make during the plan review stage.
3. It was asked how much commercial space would be located at this site and what type of
restrictions are in place with commercial establishments with neighboring schools (Seacrest school
is located next to this location), which Shaun responded no more than 35,000 square feet of
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28/09
Page 22 of 24
commercial space would be on site and he would have to check on the types of establishments
regarding the school.
4. Participants also wanted to know what type of residential living facilities were planned for this
development. Shaun responded that 20 percent of the residential property will be set aside for
affordable housing, of which property could only be leased/sold to people in the medium income
level (maximum $56,000 - $70,000) and the maximum building height could be no more then 65
feet. The residential property will be both rental and ownership properties.
The meeting ended at approximately 6:20 p.m.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 revised on
April 13,2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-
2004-AR-6829 and its companion AHDBA to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a
recommendation of approval subject to the stipulation that either of two things must occur:
I) The AHDBA and PUD document shall be revised to expressly limit residential development to
234 units, resulting in a density of 10.25 units per acre, based upon a consistent application of the
density bonuses allowances of the GMP to with 187 of the 234 dwellings comprising the residential
component, while no less than 47 afJordable and workforce residential units would be located above
ground floor commercial establishments in mixed-use buildings; QR
2) The BCC makes a policy decision regarding whether:
A. The overall density is limited because additional density cannot be derived from locating
afJordable-workforce housing in the commercial part of the PUD, where additional density is
already awarded; and
B. Density bonuses can be derived from affordable-workforce housing units that are not
geographically located in the residential part of the PUD; and
C. Density blending, as residential density generated from calculations including the
commercial tract can be transferred to the residential part of the PUD.
An affirmative determination for ALL three issues would therefore deem this petition, as proposed,
consistent with the FLUE/FLUM.
Separate motions arc required to address the rezone request and the AHDBA request.
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7, 2009 eepe
Rev: 4t28t09
Page 23 of 24
PREPARED BY:
f\a:t B~_ Hfjoq
KAY ELEM,AICP,PRINCIPALPLANNER DALE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
()~ (f (<;;JL/ . ij //3/01
RAYMOND BELLOWS, ZONfNCiMANAGER -+i~trE '
DEPARTME T OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~ \, ii'
. j~.i-iir, 7/r) J<L=tc /)0,]
USAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
1- /~g lOCi
_L1JiII_+-
DATE
APPROVED BY:
,.-. ~
~ . ~
/' . " 7 &4
/ l,,~-:-~~ '. - . ~ -, _ _ P/!0L____
JOSE;H K. SC~DMINIST~ DA TE
Cpr/MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENV1RONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
/ :'
1/
Tentatively scheduled for the June 23,2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Attaclunent: Memo from Comprehensive Planning, dated April 12, 2009
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 Davis Reserve MPUD
May 7. 2009 eepe
Rev: 4/13/09
Page 24 of 24
,\pril 27, 2009
LUJ(JJ.ry Corufominiums
Dear Sir/Madam:
My name is Evan Steingart and I am a member of rhe Napoli Condominiums Board of
Directors and a resident of Glen Eagle Golf and Country Club. I have beL>J1 appointed as
the representative by the Napoli Board of Directors and Glen Eagle Board of Directors.
Please be advised that both communities, which number over 1,500 residents are
strongly opposed to this development in its current fornlat.. Both communities will be the
most affected by the development, and will suffer the most degradation in our qWllity of life
because of it.
Davis Reserve will adversely impact our quality of lives because of increased traffic at a
v.cry dangerous intersection. It will also further erode the already decreasing housing \~alues
because of it's Haffordable housing" designation. It will bring more conunercial space to an
area whicb is many years away from digesting what it already has. It will also bring a high
density development into a neighborhood which prides itself on a resort community
lifestyle. lr is completely out of context with the surrounding community.
W'e also feel rhat the developer, \vho has no ties to the COffitnunity. is only doing what is
in his best interests, and not taking into account the best interests of tl"lC community, Davis
Reserve might work in Dade County, but it is completely out of context in Collier County.
Therefore, we are united in asking the county to decline the zoning variance that the
developer has requested.
Sincerely,
Evan Steingart
['
~~
On hehalf of Napoli Condominiums and
Glen Eagle Golf and Country Club
1850 tEwrUfa C[u6lJ)rive
:Napfes, tEL 34112
P: 239-793-7110
iF: 239-793-7115
c::::.o~-y c::::.o-u-nty
-.. ~-- .....-..... ~,
Consistency Review Memorandum
To:
Kay Deselcln, Alep, Principal Planner
Zoning and Land Development RevIew Department
From:
Corby Schmidt, A ICP, Pnnclpal Planner, ComprehensIve Planning Department
David Weeks, AICP, Planning J'vlanager, Comprehensive Planning Department
Date:
Updated to April 12, 2009
Subject:
!~jlure Limd Ure Elemenl (I'LlJ [oj COIIJiJlfI/(l /{1'1,iell' (Memo j\Jo. 7, ri flemlioll)
PETITION NUMBER: PUDJ:2004,\R6B2'}
PETITION NAME: Davis Reserve MPUD
REOUEST: Rezone of 22.83 acres from I, (Estates) zoning distnCl to MPUD (Mixed-Use Planned Unit
Development) zoning district in accordance with the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use
Subdistrict. The project site is currently undeveloped. The Petitioner seeks to establish a Mixed-Use
Planned Unit Development on the subject property', with 2R6 rcsidentlal units, resulting in a requested
density of 12.5 units per acre. It is proposed that 229 of these units would comprise the residential
component, while 57 affordahle and workforce residential units would be located above ground Hoor
commercial establishments in mixed use buildings. (rhe Petitioner proposes to attam this 12.5 unit-per
acre density hy applying a density bonus awarded for provid1l1g affordable and workforce housing) The
application packet includes a proposed Affordable Workforce Housing Dens1ty Bonus Agreement
(l\WI-IDBA).
LOCATION: The 22.83 acre subject properly lS sItuated on the southeast corner of the 11ltersee60n of
Davis Boulevard (State Road 84) at County Barn Road, in Scet10n B, '!{)wnship SO South, Range 26 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: Two clistinctly different areas, tracts, or
"components" --. the Con1mercial component, ilnJ the Residential component tnakc up this Subdistrict
and distinctly different provisions govern the devclopmen1 of each.
Please note that staff has assessed the proposal at length and believes the Petitioner's dismissal
of and disregard for certain Subdistrict provisions is inaccurate and misguided, based on the
plain meaning of the Subdistrict provisions - is also an attempt to distort the affordable and
workforce housing provisions as they relate to density - and thus inconsistent with the FLUE.
More specifically, staff reads the Subdistrict provisions for this Mixed-Use Planned Unit
Development as expressly limiting residential development to 234 units, resulting in a density of
(VI (.1.)1;;(;,<;"
CUC> ! )!\/i\!or"i, r i)rTllXel-v'r1\1\/C
,I )ep("lrt mer,!
10.25 units per acre, based upon a consistent application of the density bonuses requested. It is
proposed that 187 of these 234 dwellings would comprise the residential component, while no less
than 47 affordable and workforce residential units would be located above ground floor
commercial establishments in mixed-use buildings,
Three significant issues are standing points of disagreement between Petitioner's interpretation and staff's
assessment, as follows:
v' Whether the overall density is limited because additional density cannot be derived from locating
affordable~workforce housing in the commercial part of the PUD, where additional density is already
awarded;
v' Whether density bonuses can be derived from affordable~workforce housing units that are not
geographically located in the residential part of the PUD; and
v' Whether density blending, as residential density generated from calculations including the
commercial tract can be transferred to the residential part of the pun
Staff has applied the provisions of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict, as
adopted. Petitioner disagrees with staff's application of the provisions of this Subdistrict. In an effort to
change staff's position, the Petitioner asked the County A ttorney's Office (CAO) to provide an opinion
regarding the Board of County Commissioners' intentions based upon Minutes of BCC deliberation on
this Subdistrict, and the pertinent provisions in the Subdistrict. A fter review and analysis of the Minutes
and Subdistrict language, the CAO found them to be inconclusive with respect to the Bees intent.
Petitioner then requested that each of these three points of disagreement be returned to the BCC to
discuss the Commissioners' original intent, as part of present consideration of the MPUD. Staff believes
the Subdistrict text accuratcly reflects the Bces action in adopting it.
The subject property lies within the Urban land use designation area. It has also been designated within its
own location~specific Subdistrict within the Urban~Mixed~Use District since June 7, 2005 - the Davis
Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed~Cse Subdtstrict.
FLUE provisions state that, "this Subdistrict provides for development that incorporates traditional
neighborhood and mixed~use neighborhood design features, as well as recommendations of the
Community Character Plan (CCP). These design features include: pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly
streets; a park, small plazas and other open spaces; and, a mix of residential and neighborhood commercial
uses. Integration of residential and commercial uses in the same building is encouraged."
These Subdistrict requirements go on to state, "The commercral component shall be interconnected with
the residential component, and the commercial component shall be conveniently located to serve residents
in the nearby surrounding area. Pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided so as to afford access from
neighboring communities to the commercial uses, residential neighborhood(s), and open spaces and paths
within the Subdistrict".
Policies 7.1 through 7.7 under Objective 7 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) were approved on
October 26, 2004, This Objective and its policies adopt certain "Smart Growth" provisions into the
FLUE.
On CD Plus System
(DES Division, Comprehensive rJlallning Departrner1t
2
Since the adoption of Objective 7 and its policies, as methods to encourage such planning, the County has
gone on to implement them further. The "future" land development regulations were formulated, then
adopted as FLUE provisions for this specific, Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use
Subdistrict. This formulative process was one of Collier County's earliest opportumties to apply more of
the practices found in the Toward Better Places - The Communitv Charactet Plan for Collier County,
Florida. The Community Character Plan provides the County with a policy document featuring the most
useful aspects of traditional neighborhood design (TN])), smart growth, traffic calming, new urbanism
and other contelnporary planning practjccs. These policies are ilnplelnentcd and referenced generally by
this mixed-use Subdistrict's FLUE provisions.
These adopted FLUE provisions require that projects within Ihls Subdisttiet comply wlth the following
standards and crlteria - and are restated here, followed by staff responses specific to the Davis Reserve
MPUD request.
14. Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict
This Subdistrict comprises approximately 22.83 acres and is located at the southeast corner of the
Davis BoulevardlCounty Barn Road intersection. The intent of the Subdistrict is to provide for a
development that incorporates traditional neighborhood and mixed-use neighborhood design features,
as well as recommendations of the Collier County Community Character Plan These include:
pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly streets; a park, small plazas and other open spaces; and, a
mix of residential and neighborhood commercial uses. Integration of residential and commercial uses
in the same building is encouraged.
The commercial component shall be interconnected with the residential component, and the
commercial component shall be conveniently located to serve residents in the nearby surrounding
area. Pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided so as to afford access from neighboring
communities to the commercial uses, residential neighborhood(s), and open spaces and paths within
the Subdistrict.
Projects within this Subdistrict shall comply with the following standards and criteria
a. Commercial Component
1. The commercial component shall front County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard.
2. The frontage of the commercial component shall be no greater than twice its depth.
3. The commercial component shall be no larger than 5 acres in size and shall not exceed
45,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area
4. No single commercial use in the commercial component shall exceed 15,000 square feet
of gross leasable floor area, except that a grocery store or supermarket shall not exceed
20,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area.
5. Allowable commercial uses in the commercial component shall be limited to those uses
permitted in the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts as contained in the Collier County Land
Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of
this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005-25 adopted on June 27, 2005).
6. A common architectural theme shall be used for all commercial buildings.
7. Pedestrian connections shall be provided between all buildings.
8. Residential uses are allowed and may be located above commercial uses in the same
building or within an attached building Residential density within the commercial
Or: (CJ-r.J,lus Syslern
( Di " [):VISICHl, (c;moreriC'fl"IVC) rJI,:lllf1lr IC) I' )pr-':\Jrtmenc
component is allowed at 4 dwelling units per acre and shall be calculated based upon the
gross acreage in the Subdistrict.
9. The maximum floor area ratio for commercial uses is 025.
b. Residential Component
1. Acreage to be used for calculating residential density in the residential component of the
Subdistrict is exclusive of the commercial component and of any acreage for a use with a
residential equivalency, such as an ALF-Adult Living Facility. Eligible density shall be as
determined by application of the Density Rating System.
2. Service roads and alleys shall be integrated into the residential component of the
Subdistrict.
c. General Criteria
1. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD.
2. Parking areas shall be internal to the site and be screened from County Barn Road and
Davis Boulevard.
3. Common stairs, breezeways or elevators may join individual buildings.
4. Trails and boardwalks may be provided in preservation areas for hiking and educational
purposes, if consistent with applicable local, state and federal environmental protection
regulations.
5. The Subdistrict shall include a park, small plazas and other types of open space.
6. The number and type of access points shall be limited, as deemed appropriate during
review of subsequent development orders, so as to minimize disruption of traffic flow on
Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road.
7. Development within the Subdistrict shall be encouraged to use a grid street system, or
portion thereof, so as to provide multiple route alternatives.
8. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access to the Subdistrict shall be provided.
9. A vehicular interconnection shall be provided between the residential and commercial
components of the Subdistrict.
10. Both pedestrian and bicycle interconnections shall be provided between the residential and
commercial components of the Subdistrict.
11. A minimum of 91 residential units shall be developed in the Subdistrict (this reflects the
Density Rating System's base density of four dwelling units per acre, applied to the total
site acreage). For the project's total density - whether it is the minimum of 91 dwelling
units, or a greater amount as allowed by the Density Rating System density bonus
provisions and approved via rezoning - a minimum of ten percent (10%) must be
affordable-workforce housing units provided for those earning less than or equal to 80% of
the median household income for Collier County and another minimum of ten percent
(10%) must be affordable-workforce housing units provided for those earning greater than
80%, but no greater than 100%, of the median household income for Collier County.
12. The rezone ordinance implementing this Subdistrict shall set forth a provision to insure
construction of this minimum number of dwelling units, and type of units, such as a cap on
the commercial floor area that may be issued a certificate of occupancy prior to
construction of the minimum number, and type, of residential units.
The Residential Component provisions for this Subdistrict state, "Acreage to be used for calculating
residential density in the residential component of the Subdistrict is exclusive of the commercial
component and of any acreage for a use with a residential equivalency, such as an ALF-Adult
On CD'I':)lu~ System
CDeS Division, ComprcherlSi'Jf' elannlng Dep,3rtmenr
4
Living Facility. Eligible density shall be as determined by application of the Density Rating
System."
This criterion is not met in Petitioner's GMP /\nalvsis. Staff provides the following analysis:
Under the FLUE Density Rating System and specific SubdistrIct provisions, the subject property qualifies
for a maximum of 234 dwelling units (10.25 DU/A); 286 DUs are requested (12.5 DU/A). The Density
Rating System analysis for the proposed Davis Reserve project is as follows:
4 DU/A = Base Density (using 17.83 residential acres) -
3 DU/A = Proximity to Mixed-Use ,\ctivitv Center (using 17.83 residentlal acres) =
1 DU / A = Access to 2 or more Collq:tor Roags (using 17.83 residential acres) =
Subtotal = Awarded by Density Rating System
71.32 units
53.49 units
17.83 units
142.64 units
4 DU/A = Mixed-Use Component Density Allowance (using 22.83 acres gross) =
Total residential units allowed = 233.96 (rounded up) =,
91.32 units
234 umts
i\ffordable and Workforce Housing Units Required (20% of total)J =
47 units
The Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict clearly expresses the proVISion,
"Residential density in the residential component is exclusive of thc commercial component..."
Staff advises the cepe and lICC to consider that residential density not located in the residential
component is not aUowed at the :-;anlC density -- as the adopted Subdistrict language is undisputable, as set
forth above. Consistency relnains at JSSuc.
In this Subdistrict, density is awarded for providing mL'\.ed uses in the comlnercial component, not
[primarily) for providing affordable-workforce housing. A s a condition of awarding this density, an
amount of affordable-workforce housing is required here. It could be viewed that awarding this density
for mixed Ilse provides reasonable cn111pensation for requiring affordable-workforce housing. It follows
that density bonuses for providing affordable.workforce houslt1g are not additiot1allv ~nvardcd.
Affordable-workforce housing IS not required in the residential component, so bonuses for providing
such housing are available through the Density Rating System there. This Petition however. does not
propose to locate affordable-wQ!kforc~_ housing in the residential component. It follows then, that no
affordable-workforce housing-rebted bonuses would be awarded.
The Petitioner intends to locate all their affordable-workforce housing in the c01111nercial con1ponent, and
reguests that Collier County award density bonuses for doing so - in clear contradiction to the
unavailability of bonuses through the Density Rating Systen1 here. ~loreover, the Petitioner intends to
locate only the affordable-workforce resldential units in the commercial cOlnponent, and none of the
bonus units. This transfer, or "density blending", also clearly contradicts density blending provisions and
Community Character Plan design duectlons lencouraging a blend of densiues, and a range of housing
prices and types, in a "delicate gradient" from center to edge] generally, and poliCies of tbis Subdistrict
specifically. femphasiJ added!
The Commercial Component provisions for tillS Subdistnct state, "Residential uses are allowed and
may be located above commercial uses in the same building or within an attached building.
C)n :. L_) 1)lus System
(Df:~J I)I\/])Ior:, C(irnprent"r-:\.ivp LJid,rlllinCj !)PIl,lrimenf
)
R'.'Osidential density within the commercial component is allowed at 4 dwelling units per acre and
shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage in the Subdistrict."
This criterion is met. Staff provides the following analysis:
4 DU / A = Mixed-Use Component Allowance (using 22.83 gross acres) =
Commercial Component residential unit calculation = 91.32 (rounded down) =
91.32 units
91 units
This criterion allowJ, but does not specifically require, that the density generated from the commercial tract
be developed on the commercial tract, though staff believes such a requirement is implicit. The Petitioner
proposes to build 57 residential units on the commercial mixed-use tract with the balance being
transferred to the residential tract.
The Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict clearly expresses the provision,
"Residential density within the commercial component is allowed at...". Staff advises the CCPC
and BCC to consider that residential density nollocated within the commercial component is nol allowed at
the same density - as the adopted Subdistrict language is undisputable, as set forth above. This density
calculation is mutually exclusive of the residential component density calculation. Consistency remains at
Issue.
The General Criteria provisions for this Subdistrict state, "A minimum of 91 residential units shall be
developed in the Subdistrict (this reflects the Density Rating System's base density of four
dwelling units per acre, applied to the total site acreage). For the project's total density - whether
it is the minimum of 91 dwelling units, or a greater amount as allowed by the Density Rating
System density bonus provisions and approved via rezoning - a minimum of ten percent (10%)
must be affordable housing units and another minimum of ten percent (10%) must be workforce
housing units." This specific provision for this Subdistrict has been updated through EAR-based
amendments and now reads, "A minimum of 91 residential units shall be developed in the
Subdistrict (this reflects the Density Rating System's base density of four dwelling units per acre,
applied to the total site acreage). For the project's total density - whether it is the minimum of 91
dwelling units, or a greater amount as allowed by the Density Rating System density bonus
provisions and approved via rezoning - a minimum of ten percent (10%) must be affordable=
workforce housing units provided for those earning less than or equal to 80% of the median
household income for Collier County and another minimum of ten percent (10%) must be
affordable-workforce housing units provided for those earning greater than 80%. but no greater
than 100%. of the median household income for Collier County." [E/lR-baJe{1 amendmentJ are
underlined.)
This criterion - in either form -- is not met. The affordable housing density bonuJ does not apply, as the
affordable housing provision for this Subdistrict is a ,-equiTemenl - that 20% of the total residential unit
count be composed of 10% affordable and 10% workforce housing units. Further, affordablc or
workforce housing units are not proposed to be located in the residential component of the MPUD.
Commercial component residential unit calculation = 91.32 (rounded down) =
Residential Component residential unit calculation = 142.64 (rounded up) =
91 units
143 units
Maximum number of residential units allowed =
234
Orl CD-Plus System
CDES Dlvjsion, Comprehensive Planning Depanment
6
This density calculation limits development to 10.25 dwelling units per acre - 2.25 du/ ac fewer
than the density proposed by the Petitioner.
Affordable and Workforce Housing Units Required (20% of total)] co 47
The Davis Reserve PUDZ proposal is consistent with the amount of affordable-workforce housing units
being provided only. not with the interpretation of how affordable-workforce housing density bonuses are
applied. Petitioner intends to provide 57 affordable or workforce residences (20% of 286) to achieve a
bonus density of 6.28 units per acre.
The General Criteria provisions for this Subclistrict state, "The rezone ordinance implementing this
Subdistrict shall set forth a provision to insure constrnction of this minimum number of dwelling
units [91 total], and type of units [9 affordable housing, 9 workforce housing], such as a cap on
the commercial floor area that may be issued a certificate of occupancy prior to construction of
the minimum number, and type, of residential units." !emphasiJ addedj
Petitioner intends to develop lnore residential units than this minimum number, but contends that such a
"provision to insure construction of this min1l11Urn" is unnecessary. Staff notes such a provision is not
elective -- it IS a requirement of the Subdistrict.
Review of PUD Document and Master Plan:
The proposed PUD Document has replaced the typical Statement of Compliance wIth a "GMP Analysis".
Not all revisions cutuply \vith prevIous staff ITcotnnlcndations provided in previous review stages.
Comprehensive Planning maintains its aSSCSS111cnt that the Pc6tioner's chosen approach IS a distortion of
the Subclistrict density provisions and inconsistent with the FLU E. The dwelling unit figure of 286
provided by the Petitioner reflects an incorrect and inaccurate Interpretation of Subdistrict provisions.
Density bonuses should not be awarded for providing the required affordable or workforce housing units.
Nor should bonuses be awarded where development already takes advantage of other added density
specific to this Subdistrict - awarded for developing a mixed-use prolect. This point of disagreement is a
policy issue to be considered by the Cc:Pe:, then recommended to the BCC for a decision.
Revisions as necessary will be made to PUD documents and the /Hfordable Workforce Housing Denslty
Bonus Agreclnent following the Bee decision on this issue.
Subdistrict provisions require a condition he written that hUIlding pcnnits not be issued for nlore than a
limited number of square feet of COl1unercial floor area prior to issuance of Certificates of (kcupancy for
a specific number of dwelling units, inclUSIve of affordable and workforce housing. Petitioner prefers a
limitation that is not connected with development of the project's commercial component, as all
development is proposed to occur in a slOgle phase. Specific provisions arc to be prepared by the Zoning
and Land Development Review staff as part of the DaVIS Reserve-approving PUD Ordinance.
CONCLUSION: No revisions have been made to PLJDZ-04-6829 with respect to Comprehensive
Planning issues. Review COl1lffiCnts and conclusions rematn essentially.' the same as those provided for the
previous iteration.
tJn (-I) !)Ius SYStel~1
C IX\ DiVlS!(J.ll, COI'lfxc,I,erl\'ve
r-Jcpar lmUll
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff concludes the requested rezone may not be
deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Three significant points of differing applicability
and interpretation stand between Petitioner and review staff. We have agreed to disagree on these three
points, and to give Planning Commissioners and County Commissioners the opportunity to evaluate how
the density provisions of this Subdistrict apply in each of these areas of concern - overall density, density
bonuses, and density blending - and provide direction.
1. The minimum or maximum density:
- overall, as a function of base density, bonuses and other density allowances offered in
each component of the Subdistrict;
[staff calculates a maximum density of 234 dwelling units]
[petitioner calculates a maximum density of 348 dwelling units]
- in the commercial cOll1ponent;
[staff believes the same number of dwellin~ units [or more] should be located
within the commercial component, as the density generated from rhe commercial
component]
[l'etitioner contends that fewer dwelling units can be located within the commercial
component, than the density generated from the commercial component] and,
- in the residential cOlnponent;
[staff believes the same number of dwellin~ units [or fewer] should be located
within the residential component, as the density ,generated from the residential
component]
[petitioner contends that more dwellin~ units can be located within the residential
component, than the density generated from the residential component]
2. Whether affordable-workforce housing density bonuses will apply:
- to all the affordable/workforce housing being provided; or,
[as Petitioner proposes]
- to only those units provided OIJer the minimum number required and located in the
residential component;
[as staff recommends]
3. Whether Subdistrict criterion (a) (8), under Commercial Component standards, allows density
generated from [or residential uses allowed in] the commercial tract to be [distributed,] transferred,
or "blended" to the residential tract,
- and if so, what number of dwelling units'
A rewriting of the PUD documents and the Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus Agreement
(AHDBA) may be necessary with regard to the evaluation and deCIsion made by the Board of County
Commissioners.
On CO-Plus System
CDES DIVISion. ComprT:'henSi\le rJlannrng Department
8
Supplemental Comprehensive Planning Staff Remarks
12 APRIL 09
The developer desires to develop a total of 286 housing units. 234 of these units are derived from the
consistent application of FLUE provisions for the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use
Subdistrict. The remaining 52 units can be derIved from applying other provisions of the Density Rating
System.
The Density Rating System, in concert with Subdistrict provisions allow, "for calculating residential density
in the residential component" of 17.83 acres in atea. The (52) desired bonus U!uts arc divided by the
(17.83) residential component acreage, equating to a denslty bonus of 2.916 du/ac. Rounded up, this is
three (3) bonus units per acre. This density can be achieved by a number of approaches.
[Keep in mind that 29 affordable (81-100% MUll hOIlJIIlj', IInitJ and
28 workforce l''!:. 80% ..MIJJ7 hotlJif1.c~ units are required, as a conditioll 0/
. . .
f11vardi~g a A11~":(ed-Use Component DOH/I)' /1110lJ/{1llt'l:, .ym,?fic fo IbiJ Jubdistnd.j
,/ One approach is to commit to develop 10"/0 (28.6 rollne/ed down II! 28) workforce [61.80% MUlj
housing units in the residential cotnponcnt to derive two (2) bonus housing units per acre and 1 QO/o
(28.6 rounded III' to 29) gap (81-150% MI-IJ' housing unJts in the residential component in order to
derive one (1) bonus housing unit per acre.
,/ Another approach is to commit to develop 20% (57.2 rollnded donmlo 57) workforce houslllg units in
the residential component to derive all three (3) bonus housing units per acre.
,/ Yet another approach is to commit to develop 10% (28.6 rounded up to 29) low-income affordable [51
60% MHlj housing units in the residential component to detive all three (3) bonus housing units per
acre.
No fewer than 27 (300/0 of 91), but no more than <)1 housmg units must be developed in the comlnercial
component of the PUD -- ].])ilh !!lore thall 63 !)(:tI~g the Im:i;('!. Prcsunung that the devdoper chooses an
approach where 114 affordable-workfotce-gap (1\ We;) housing 1S the combined
requirement/ commitment, between 23 and K7 AWe; houslOg units must be developed in the residential
component of the pun No bonuses can be derived from the first 57 AWe; units located in the
con1fficrcial componen t.
The desired density cannot be achieved however, hy the developer's presently proposed approach. Their
proposal to provide 57 affordable workforce housing units for a honus density of 2.2K units per acre is
found in the developer's Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus Agteement (AHDBA). [nole:
/JamfJeJ are attual!y awarded ill )JJhole IltfJJlben./'
'rhe problem with this approach begins with the fact that these 57 units ate already awatded as a density
allowance of four (4) units per acre, on 22.8() gross acres. T'hc developer's approach means bonus density
can be calculated on the base density and on density accul11ulated from the Mixed-Use Component
Density Allowance. The same 57 units would dip into the bonus pool again and count for another
228 units per acre - generating a compounded bonus..clcnsity of 6.28 units per acre! Again, this
bonus [of more than half the total dens11\'1 would he awarded for providing just 20% in affordable-
workforce housing units. Bonus densitv 1S calculated on the base density only 111 the AHDB SystelTI.
IJr~ U)-iJiUS
C i-X-S C),VISlon. C'.omprerirYl\IVC'
L)f'iJ,~jrtn)Cnl
9
Accumulated density from prior bonuses and other density allowances is not eligible for calculating
additional bonuses. Conclusion: Neither the PUD not the AHDBA should be approved/adopted by the
BCe.
Under typical application of the AHDB System - which is structured to avoid such double-dipping _ a
number of approaches to generating the desired bonus density are possible, as explained by staff analysis
above. Under one viable approach, the developer can choose to provide:
10% (29) affordable [81-100% MHIJ housing units
10% (28) workforce [:S 80% MHI] housing units
10% (28) workforce [61-80% MHI] housing units
10% (29) gap [81-150% MHI] housing units
[note: the required "affordable" category differs jTom the committed "gap" category; and, tbe required "workfon'e"
category differs from the committed "workjorce" category - but the pain',,~s might be structured to be subsets one to the
otber. J
With this typical and consistent application of the ,'\I-IDB System, the desired density allowance and
bonuses would be awarded for providing 400;\, in affordable-workforce-gap housing units (114).
Finally, let's look at the number of affordable-workforce housing that would hypothetically need to be
provided if no Mixed-Use Component Density Allowance was offered/awarded:
10% (29) workforce [61-80% MHI] housing units for 2 bonus units/acre, plus
50'\10 (143) gap [81-150% MI-II] housing units for 5 bonus units/acre
From this hypothetical example, one can see that the developer derives greater benefit from generating
additional density from the Mixed-Use Component Density Allowance than from the AHDB System
alone.
cc: Ronda/! Cohen, AlCl~ Dim'!or, ComprehenJive Planni'lg Department
Susan lstenes, .AI Cl~ Director, Department of Zoning & Land DClJelopment Review
Raymond Bellows, Manager, Department of Zonil(g eC~ Land DClJelopment Review
CD/PUlE file
On Cf)-Plus Sy\!Cm
CDES Divls,'orl, (omprerK'nslvf' Plannln,::j IJepcJrtment
10
ORDINANCE NO. 09-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH
INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSNE ZONING
REGULA TIONS FOR THE UNTNCORPORA TED AREA
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING
THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS;
BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
TIlE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM
THE ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE DAVIS RESERVE MPUD. THE
PROJECT IS PROPOSING A MAXIMUM OF 286
DWELLING UNITS, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS AND A MAXIMUM OF 35,000
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAUOFFICE USES.
TIffi SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 22.83
ACRES, IS TO BE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS
BOULEV ARD (SR 84) AND COUNTY BARN ROAD,
IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTNE DATE.
WHEREAS, Robert Andrea, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.,
representing Collier Davis LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to
change the zoning classification of the herein described real property.
NOW, TIlEREFORE, 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
8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the
Estates (E) Zoning District to the Mixed Use PImmed Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning
District for the Davis Reserve MPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through E and the
Page I of2
attachment entitled, "Agreement Authorizing Affordable Workforce Housing Density
Bonus and Imposing Covenant and Restrictions on Real Property," all of which are
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map
or maps as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as mnended, the Collier County
Land Development Code, is/are hereby mnended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote by 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:
DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN
,Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
~(rxC ,0"'
\Y '^\
1(- \ .,,~i)
Heidi Ashton Cicko
Assistant County Attorney, Land Use Section Chief
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
List of Allowable Uses
Development Standards
Master Plan
Legal Description
Development Commitments Specific to the Project
Attachment: "Agreement Authorizing Affordable Workforce Housing Density Bonus and
Imposing Covenant and Restrictions on Real Property"
06-CPS-00391126 HFAC 2/6/09
Page 2 of2
EXHIBIT A
LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
A. RESIDENTIAL TRACT (Desianated "R" on the MPUD Master Plan)
1. 1. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
The maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed within the
Residential Component and Commercial Component of the Davis Reserve
MPUD shall be 286.
1. 2. 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:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Multi-family dwellings.
2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list ot permitted principal uses, as determined by the
Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process outlined in the
LDC.
B. Accessory Uses:
1. Gatehouses, guardhouses, and/or access control structures.
2. Recreational uses, including swimming pools, tennis courts.
volleyball courts, bocce ball courts, shuffle board courts, walking
paths and trails, picnic areas, and gazebos.
3. Recreational facilities and buildings including community centers
and club houses tor use by residents within the community. These
facilities may include offices, meeting rooms, restrooms, banquet
hall, and kitchens.
4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the
permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited
to garages. both attached and detached, carports, utility
structures and sheds.
5. Model units and model sales centers.
Revised April 13, 2009
6. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the
"BZA" by the process outlined in the LDC.
B. COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE TRACT (Desianated "MU" on the MPUD Master Plan)
1.1. MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL SQUARE FEET AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
The five-acre Commercial Component, shall not be developed with more
than 35,000 square feet of commercial/office uses. The maximum number
of residential dwelling units allowed within the Residential Component and
Commercial Component of the Davis Reserve MPUD is 286.
1.2 PERMITTED USES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or
land used, in whole or part. for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Multi-family dwelling units above commercial units, in attached or in
stand-alone buildings.
2. Townhouses.
3. Allowable commercial uses permitted by right and conditional use
approval in the commercial mixed use component shall be limited to
those uses permitted in the C-l, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts as
contained in Ihe Collier County Land Development Code.
Ordinance 04-41. as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption
of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict
(Ordinance No. 2005-25 adopted on June 27, 2005). unless otherwise
provided for in this Section, as follows:
a. C-1. Commercial Professional and General Office District, in effect
at time of SDP approval, except homeless shelters and soup
kitchens.
b. C-2, Commercial Convenience District, in effect at time of SDP
approval. except gasoline service stations (Group 5541), homeless
shelters and soup kitchens.
c. C-3, Commercial Intermediate District. in effect at time of SDP
approval, except marinas (Group 4493). automotive services
(Group 7549), homeless shelters, hospitals (Groups 8062-8069), and
soup kitchens.
2
Revised April 13, 2009
B. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted
principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to:
1. Essential services designed and operated to provide water, sewer,
gas, telephone, electricity, cable television or communications to the
general public including interim and permanent utility and
maintenance facilities.
2. Pump stations, utility services and facilities, emergency generators,
cable and telecommunication facilities.
3. Utility buildings, maintenance shops, and equipment storage.
4. Recreational uses and facilities, including swimming pools, tennis
courts, volleyball courts, bocce ball courts, walking paths and trails,
picnic areas, gazebos, recreation buildings, parks, passive
recreational areas, band shell/stage, pedestrian rest area,
bathrooms, and shuffle board courts.
5. Manager's residences and offices, temporary sales trailers, and
model units.
6. Galehouses. guardhouses, and/or access control structures.
7. Water management facilities and related structures.
8. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the
developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants,
including the necessary accessways, parking areas and related uses
to serve such offices subject to the issuance of a temporary use
permit pursuant to the LDC.
9. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nalure with the
foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the
"BZA" by the process outlined in the LDC.
3
Revised April 13.2009
C. PRESERVE TRACT (Desianated uP" on the MPUD Master Plan)
1.1. 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, subject to the
issuance of regional, state and federal permits, when required:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Nature preserves.
2. Pervious nature trails and boardwalks, passive recreational areas,
recreational shelters, and other similar uses.
3. Water management structures.
a. A portion of the 5.29 acre preserve area will be used to
temporarily store treated storm water for infrequent events when
run-off exceeds one and one-half inches. The storm water will be
drained back into the storm water management lake as draw
down occurs through the control structure.
4. Any other conservation use in accordance with the LDC which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the BZA
determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area.
4
Revised April 13, 2009
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Table I in Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within
the Residential Component. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall
be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date
ot approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat.
TABLE I
RESIDENTIAL "R" TRACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
TOWNHOUSE
MULTI-FAMILY CLUBHOUSE/RECREATION
BUILDINGS
MINIMUM LOT AREA
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA (Per Unit)
MINIMUM YARDS {ExfernalJ
Flam External ROW
From MPUD Boundaries
N/A
I~/A
-.--. - -~~-~'--
600 SF
N/A
N/A
600 SF
N/A
N/A
----_.._-~.-~
N/A
20 n
10 FT
20 FT
10FT
20 Fl
10 F1
MINIMUM YARDS (Internal)
-_._._----~- --- ---
MINIMUM FRONT YARD ,,-FT a_fl
----------- --,,-~~--
MINIMUM SIDE YARD a F1 OFT
-...--------..----..--
MINIMUM REAR YARD 5 F1 5 FT
__________..__ ____ ___0" ______________
__MIN PRESERVE SETBACK u -- ___:"5 FT -- n 1___ 25 F1 ---
~~~:uL~K:AS:~~~~~~~~i--:f_... ....20 FT_____--~O:=-.. .____
MAXIMUM FRONTY ARD' 16 F1 16 FT t 6 FT
~~~~~~S~~~~~~R~S----- --=~~~~ IT --~I--~~:= t:=--___
MAXIMUM HEIGHT =-f=' -- - - ----
Zoned 55 F1 55 FT 35 FT
AC~~I~;~RY-STRUCTUR~~ - . ...65Jl--l-- 65 FT_____~~
::~~J~7If:~~~ nun u -t~;--~r~:f~,-:~: 1
--_ - ----1-- ____
MINIMUM SIDE YARD 0 FT ' 0 FT 0 fT
---- - -- --- - --------
MINIMUM REAR YARD 5 fl 5 FI 5 F1
-MA~:UL~K:E~~~~rAC~-- I _ 2O..rr..._ _~ ___)0 FTu_l- __.}OFT __
i- '-~~:=I. -- _ = _ . - t -- --~H~ -d~_ _~~_~ =.-t----.-_=; ~~~__
OFT
Q fT
------------------
5 IT
25 FT
.--.--------
20 fT
5
Revised April 13, 2009
Buildings shall primarily front public rights-of-way in order to create a
sense of place and relationship to the street. At least 70% of the building
fa<;:ade along internal streets must be located within the minimum and
maximum setbacks. Facades shall feature design elements that break
up monotonous walls such as changes in wall plane (recesses and
protrusions), distinct building components and varied roof forms. The
transition between public and private space shall be defined with
elements such as landscaping, low decorative walls/fencing, recessed
entrances, elevation changes and similar features.
GENERAL:
A. No structures shall be permitted in the required 20-foot lake maintenance
easement.
B. A finished masonry wall or berm, or combination thereof, but not gates or
similar structures shall be allowed between the Commercial and Residential
Components as long as vehicular and pedestrian traffic remains
unobstructed.
C. All building exteriors, lighting, sign age. landscaping and visible architectural
infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified. Said unified
architectural theme shall include: a similar architectural design and use of
similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and
fences/walls to be erected on all of the subject parcels. Landscaping and
streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the subject
site.
D. Streets and parking areas shall be designed to promote circulation through
the development. Parking drive lanes shall be interconnected and shall
have no dead-end aisles_
6
Revised April 13, 2009
B. Table II in Exhibit A sets forth the development standards for land uses within
the Commercial Component. Standards nof specifically set forth herein
shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LOC in effect as of the
date of approval of the SOP or subdivision plat.
TABLE II
MIXED-USE "MU"TRACT DEVelOPMENT STANDARDS
F~---
Building Types
.._-~._-
Mulll.Famlly
~-_...~--- ~
Commercial* Mixed Use
t-=-=.==__ r-
PRINCIPAL USES -------
MINIMUM LOT AREA "_M N/A N/A
AVERAGE LOT WIDTH N/A ..._._riLA
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA (Per Unit) N/A 600 SF
MINIMUM YARDS IExternal' .. - ----------'
- --~,-
Frorn External ROW 20 FT 20 FT
~.w_~_ ..
From MPUD Boundaries 1--- 10 FT 10 FT
MINIMUM YARDS Ilntemallu,--- -_.._--
-~----- ---'-- --------
MINIMUM FRONT YARD Q.,FT Q.FT
--- r---
MINIMUM SIDE YARD OFT Q.FT
.--,'---.- "_w_', --..--::::--- .. 1--- .. --- ----
MINIMUM REAR YARD 5 FT 5F!
----~._--------- f-----..... -- I---~-_._~
MIN PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FT 25 FT
MIN LAKE SETBACK 20 FT 20 FT
..------ _0" - ---------
MAXIMUM YARDS [Internal)
----- ----- - ------ -.
MAXIMUM FRONT YARD 1 16 FT 16 fT
-------- -----.--...-.
..0i1'_.QISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10 Feet 10 Feet
MAXIMUM HEIGHT '------ i---. - - .. ---.. ,.---------
Zoned ...._._._______ I--- __.. 55___~ -.-. 55
--'---
Actual 65 65
--.... ..--- --.----------- -----------
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO IFAR)2 0.25 0.25
MAX GROSS LEASABLE AREA 1--. 35.000 SF__. 35.000 SF
-.- "n_
~ngle Use 15.000 SF 15.000 SF
Grocery Store/ Superm~r~et3 20.000 SF 20.000 SF
ACCESSORY USES ...:...======E-----
MINIMUM LOT AREA ---_.._--'.. --~~~-- -.. ~ .~1-=
A VERAGE LOT WIDTH
MINIMUM YARDS IExtern~ --~-----
From External ROW .-.- ___.......1Q.FT._ ...._. 20 Il.._
From MPUD Boundaries 10FT 10FT
MINIMUM YARDS Ilnternall ------=-=----~-~-~ --------=---~=.
MINIMUM FRONT YARD j-- ~ :~.+=-~-;~-
--
MINIMUM SIDE YARD
MINIMUM REAR YARD
f--.--. - ---_._----_.._,.._,...~-
MIN PRESERVE SETBACK I 10 fT : 10 rT
_._------~_._--~ --.- ------------!-.------- ,.
MIN LAKE SETBACK 20FT' 20FT
N/A
N/A
600 SF
20 FT
10FT
QH
.----..-.
Q.FT
5 fT
25 fT
-"-------_._-..-
20 fT
16 FT
10 Feet
55
------------
65
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20 FT
~ ';;-
15fT -
---+--- _L __ _ _ ji - --:~ ~
~MIN DISTANCE-BETWEEN STRUCTURQ_t~--:.~ 10 FT_ I lOll......... .. .~='--'JO FT':-~_
M.AXIMUMHEIGHl......__ I -- _ L __!=__~_._~
Zoned _~ ____~ t--30 11..._ _~ _.. 30.r:.r. __ __30 FT_
Actual_.___ _15._.FTn----.l___}5..FT._ ___35fT _
* - If 0 commercial only building is developed Within the "MU" Tract. this applies
7
Revised April J 3. 2009
Townhouse
__1'1 A_
N/A
600 SF
20 fT
10 FT
Q,fT
-~-
Q.fT
5 FT
25 FT
20 fT
16 FT
10 Feet
55
65
-~------
N/A
N/A
..lJL A
N/A
NtA
N/A
20 FT
10 FT
OFT
OFT
5FT
10 FT
20 fT
--,,-_.._~--
10 FT
30 FT
35 FT
Buildings sholl primarily front public rights-of-way in order to create 0 sense
of place and relationship to the street. At least 70% of the building fa<;:ade
along internal streets must be located within the minimum and maximum
setbacks. Facades sholl feature design elements that break up
monotonous walls such os changes in wall plane (recesses and
protrusions), distinct building components and varied roof forms.
2 In mixed use buildings the FAR only applies to the commercial uses.
3 The maximum gross leasable area in the mixed use buildings only applies
to commercial uses. The maximum gross leasable area for commercial
uses sholl total no more than 35,000 square feet in the entire MPUD.
GENERAL:
A. No structures sholl be permitted in the required 20-foot lake maintenance
easement.
B. A finished masonry wall or berm, or combination thereof, but not gates or
similar structures sholl be allowed between the Commercial and Residential
Components os long os vehicular and pedestrian traffic remains
unobstructed.
C. Streets and parking areas sholl be designed to promote ease of circulation
and alternative routes through the development. Parking drive lanes sholl
hove no dead-end aisles.
8
Revised April 13. 2009
1[110 :
,
~i!:~ ~
~~~ ~
~'i:'"
~~;;-
0."
:I~
~l;;
g;;;o
~"'"
."
..~'J
~~~
, ,
8 ;;;
--v
o
,
. ~ <>>",...~
~ . ~~~~
. n I
~ 0""
. z ~g~
. '" ~<
. c "
z z<
'1 .
>
0
z
.
"
~~
"
~ "'0" '"
...........
0 >-:>-,....
C "non
~
~_z::a:::.CU\fTY f)ARN ROAD - /" ./ /' ./ ./ /' ./ /' ,/ /' )
~ i:fE---- ---!--------- - - - - - -
!J.- ---------+-- ~
.: . F'~m:i31- :-;11
:mllj~..-.~~ --~~ ~ii'i'~~~ ~ -; --i: j
~ ~ 1'1':.. ...- :.: ;~E ~;:::I~ :
.. 8 . 11;1: ... ". ~ ~ )
II "Z Z
C . I_I' .' ~-<:: ~:>,C ,
_" ,. :_ J1: ... ..- ,
.... . , ~
~~ ::......................(...\(1 <::> ~ t
~ I::' .~.~!II.'!I.~l!I.~!I'.~.~~.~~.:: ~ "
I I. -:-.-:/
01:---------------,:1: :
I: I'.' )
. ,:.; I
~: 1:1: I
. I... I
_ :- J'I" I
,:.: I
,:.; I
... UlItJ' I I
.~-- ~~
::: : I
'.' I
:.: I
:1: I
".' I
:.: I
'.' I
.1....... ,
.'~ '.: ,
.,7i-' ...i': i
;...~~~ ..'
): ..-.........
..~-'-~.
~......,...................-...
,
~
"":-'0
::::H
H-H-l';
~
0:
rn
;'
~
~
0;
~:
/IJ
II'
Ii:
,-
,:
P'.. .'-..-..~--_.-...
............ . ....
.............. ...
,......... ........,
-:<<< <<<<. ,-:,",:-: ," .:-:. "-:.",
'", \Jl','
", ,..:....,.
'.~--U:
>~:
" lJ1...
Aim
:-:-:- \J\~:-
. fiT.'
.....:~:-:
II
g
~
0:
~
i
~. .
,
k
~:: .
1-;-
I.....'
I.....
r
,:-:-.
.:
,- ..
- .
ij
u
~
/IJ
.'
~.
.'-
~'.
,,-
.:
.:
..
.:
;"
/IJ
C. .... <-:.:-:-:-:1
b~ ~.~ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ~ ~ _ _ -- - __8
;~
,
c'
___z.___
DY.>Tth tJ"f'tP ZPNN&
''';;;:: ~g:~;-;i;;
--.,......."'.....-.,.-<-
{-.....," _"._~L,_
~lxtD USE PiJO COHCEPTUAl "ASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT .C
ocroSf:R 20D8
oQ"
- -""'==
--
DAVIS RESERVE
~ .-- ---
-~- --
-.=. .~--;:
EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE :N~ 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, LESS THE WEST 50 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4, AND
LESS THE NORTH 75 FEET, (LESS AND EXCEPT PORTION WAS NOT PROVIDED IN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
AND
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST. (LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE
NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF - NOT INCLUDED IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION).
AND
THE W 1/2 OF E 1/2 OF N 1/2 OF S 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
AND
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE
NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF.
THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
ALL THE ABOVE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CONTAINING 22.83 ACRES OF LAND MORE OF LESS.
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERV A nONS OF RECORD.
10
Revised April 13.2009
EXHIBIT E
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT
1. TRANSPORTATION
A. The Developers completion of commitment "B" below shall satisfy
mitigation requirements of Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan, and shall further satisfy proportionate share
requirements of the East Central Transportation Concurrency Management
Area as otherwise required by the Land Development Code.
B. The developer, his successors, or assigns agrees to contribute tunding to the
Collier County Transportation Services Division to install and implement an
intelligent traffic management system at two intersections located along
the Davis Boulevard corridor, which is a hurricane evacuation route. The
total cost ot this contribution shall be no greater than $110,000.00 tor the
signalization improvements to both intersections. Payment shall be required
at time of first Site Development Plan or Plat approval.
C. Payment in lieu for sidewalks and bike lanes for County Barn Road frontage
shall be required. The amount shall be determined utilizing FOOT's 2006
Transportation Costs, as amended. Payment shall be required prior to
County approval of the first development order.
D. The Developer shall contribute his fair share towards the intersection
improvements at Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. Fair share
shall be determined by measuring the project's traffic as a percentage of
the increased intersection capacity. Payment shall be required prior to
County approval of the first development order.
E. A six foot sidewalk along the Davis Boulevard frontage must be provided
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. If the required
sidewalk is constructed by an entity other than the developer, the
developer shall be required to make payment in lieu utilizing FOOT's 2006
Transportation Costs, as amended.
F. No certificates of occupancy shall be issued until one of the following
scenarios occurs:
I. Substantial completion of Santa Barbara Boulevard extension (from
Davis Blvd. to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, County project number
60091); and sufficient capacity becomes available on County Barn
Road to accommodate this development, as demonstrated in the
current AUIR or by traffic counts performed by the Developer and
approved by the county.
11
Revised April J 3, 2009
2. Widening of County Barn fo four lanes along the entire project fronfage
on County Barn Road, including all County Barn/Davis Boulevard
intersection improvements (four-lane County Barn Road; six-lane Davis
Blvd; associated turn lanes included in the County's design plans,
County project number 60101). If the intersection improvemenfs are
completed by Collier County. FOOT, or parties acting on behalf of either
entity, then the developer is required to contribufe its' fair share towards
these intersection improvements. Payment shall be required prior to
County approval of the first development order, excepf as provided in
"G" below_
G. In order to receive Certificates of Occupancy prior to completion of either
the Santa Barbara Extension or County Barn Road widening by Collier
County, FOOT, or parties acting on behalf of either entity, the developer
may elect to provide mitigation by doing the following:
1. Accelerating the planned improvements to County Barn Road outlined
in scenario F. 2 above, AND
2. Completing either of the two following options:
a. Agreeing to accept, attenuate, and treat stormwater runoff for water
quality from all lanes of County Barn Road for the length of the
project frontage, OR
b. Contributing funding to the Collier County Transportation Services
Division to install and implement an intelligent traffic management
system at two additional intersections along the Davis Boulevard
corridor, which is a hurricane evacuation route. The total cost of this
contribution shall be no greater than $110,000.00 for the signalization
improvements to both intersections.
2. WATER MANAGEMENT
A. Preliminary design indicates the culvert under Davis Boulevard can be
connected to the water management system of the project and the flow
passed through without adverse impact to Davis Boulevard_ The intent is for
the storm water management lake to be along the northern property line,
close to the culvert. If in final design it is not possible to make this
connection, a drainage easement shall be provided by the owner to
Collier County within 30 days of the issuance of the first development order.
The size of the easement shall be determined during the SOP phase of the
project. This connection will also be included in the Environmental
Resource Permit (ERP).
12
Revised April 13.2009
B. The project site is an exporter ot storm water during a ] DO-year 3-day event
and compensating storage is not required.
e. This project shall be subject to EAC approval prior to approval of the first
Site Development Plan or final plat/construction plans. Specifically, the
developer shall ensure the following:
1. That the site plans demonstrate that the hydrology of the preserve area
shall be maintained or enhanced; and
2. Stormwater shall not be discharged below the existing seasonal high
water level.
3. PLANNING
A. Sidewalks and access drives within the mixed use component will extend to
the boundaries of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use
Subdistrict to promote interconnection with adjacent properties.
B. Pedestrian and bicycle access shall be provided by owner to both County
Barn Road and Davis Boulevard.
e. All buildings shall be interconnected with ground level pedestrian
walkways.
4, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
A. A minimum of 10% of the overall residential dwelling unit densify shall be
affordable-workforce housing units provided for those earning less than or
equal to 80% of the median household income for Collier County and
another minimum of 10% of the overall density shall be affordable-
workforce housing units provided for those earning greater than 80%, but
no greater than 100% of the median household income for Collier County.
5. SUNSETTlNG PROVISION
A. Pursuant to Exhibit E. ]. F. of this PUD, actions of the County which delay
and/ or cause the failure to complete the roadway capacity
improvements. or to otherwise perform actions which result in providing the
necessary roadway capacity or other requirements (thus allowing e.O.
issuance) shall not be deemed to be an action of government pursuant to
10.02.13. D of the LDC as amended, and thus will not cause the suspension
of the duration of the sunsetting timeframes.
13
Revised April J 3. 2009
This space for recording
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the __ day of
,2009,
by and between Collier Davis, LLC (the "Developer") and the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners (the "Commission"), collectively, the "Parties."
RECITALS:
A The Developer owns a tract of real property described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein (The "Property"). It is the Developer's intent to construct
a maximum of 286 residential units (the "Units") at a density of 12.53 units per
gross acre on the Property. The gross acreage of Property is 22.83
acres. The
number of affordable-workforce housing units constructed by Developer shall be
57 .- representing 20 percent of the total number of residential Units approved in
the development, or
100
pereent of the approved bonus units_
B. In order to construct the Units, the Developer must obtain a density bonus
from the Commission for the Property as provided for in the Collier County Affordable
Housing Density Bonus Ordinance No. 90-89, now codified by Ordinance 04-41, as
Land Development Code (LDC) 3 2.06.00 et seq" which density bonus can only be
Page 1 of 29
4112106
Updated 02111109
granted by the Commission and utilized by the Developer in accordance with the strict
limitations and applicability of said provisions.
C, The Commission is willing to grant a density bonus to the Developer
authorizing the construction of 57 bonus Units on the Property, if the Developer
agrees to construct affordable, workforce, and gap Units as specified in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval and grant of the density
bonus of 2.28 units per acre requested by the Developer and the benefits conferred
thereby on the Property, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Developer and the Commission
hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by reference.
2. Developer Aqreements. The Developer hereby agrees that he shall
construct up to 57 units, not to exceed 20 % of the approved residential
density as affordable-workforce housing units, whieh Units shall be sold in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and as specified by the attached
Appendices A & S, Exhibits A, B, & C, and Appendix C, which Appendices are
incorporated by reference herein and which constitute a part of this Agreement.
a. The following provisions shall be applicable to the affordable, workforce
and gap Units:
(1) Defined terms: In the event of a eonflict between terms as defined in the
LDC or in Ordinanee No. 90-89, Section 4, the definitions of the LDC will control when
applying or interpreting this Agreement. In addition to these defined terms and the
applicability of LDC !:l 206.04 "Phasing" shall mean: (a) the phased construction of
buildings or structures in separate and distinct stages as shown on a PUD master plan,
subdivision master plan or site development plan; or (b) in developments where phased
construction is not depicted on a PUD master plan, subdivision master plan or site
development plan, the construction of buildings or structures in a clearly defined series
Updated 02/11/09
Page 2 of 29
of starts and finishes that are separate and distinct within the development.
(2) Median Income. For the purposes of this Agreement. the median income
of the area as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) shall be the then current median income for the Naples Metropolitan Statistical
Area, established periodically by HUD and published in the Federal Register, as
adjusted for family size as shown on the tables attached hereto as Appendix A, Exhibit
C, which Exhibit shall be adjusted from time to time in accordance with any adjustments
that are authorized by HUD or any successor agency. In the event that HUD ceases to
publish an established median income as aforesaid, the Parties hereto shall mutually
agree to another reasonable and comparable method of computing adjustments in
median income.
(3) Eliqibilitv and Qualification of Owner. Family income eligibility is a
three-step process: 1) submittal of an application by a prospective Owner; 2) verification
of family housing unit provided under the affordable, workforce, and gap housing
density bonus program prior to being qualified at the appropriate level of income (very
low, low, workforce, or gap income) in accordance with this Section; 3) certification of
eligible Owner by the Housing and Human Services Department.
The Developer shall be responsible for qualifying Owners by accepting
applications, verifying income and obtaining income certification for all affordable,
workforce, and gap units in the subject development. All applications, forms and other
documentation required by this Agreement shall be provided to Housing and Human
SefVices Department. Qualification by the Developer of any persons as an eligible
Owner family shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the monitoring
and enforcement program in LDC SS 2.06.05 and 2.06.06, respectively.
The Developer and Commission acknowledge and agree that once the
developer has delivered all affordable. workforce, and gap units contemplated under
this Agreement to approved purchasers, the Developer shall no longer be required to
provide progress and monitoring reports, and shall no longer be liable for enforcement
Updated 02111/09
Page 3 of 29
action under this Agreement.
(a) Application. A potential owner shall apply to the developer, owner,
manager, or agent to qualify as a very low, low, workforce, or gap income family for the
purpose of owning and occupying an affordable-workforce housing unit pursuant to the
affordable-workforce housing density bonus program. The Preliminary Application for
affordable-workforce housing unit shall be provided to Collier County Housing and
Human Services Department as shown in Appendix B, Exhibit A, attached to this
Agreement and incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Income Verification and Certification. No affordable-workforce housing
unit in the development shall be sold whose household income has not been verified
and certified in accordance with this Agreement and LDC S 2.06.05.
(c) Ineome Verification. The Developer shall obtain written verification from
the potential occupant (including the entire household) to verify all regular sources of
income (including the entire household). The most recent year's federal income tax
return for the potential occupants (including the entire household) may be used for the
purpose of income verification, attached to the affordable-workforce housing applieant
Income Verification form, including a statement to release information, occupant
verification of the return, and a signature block with the date of application. The
verifieation shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) days prior to occupancy.
Upon expiration of the 180 day period, the information may be verbally updated from
the original sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented by the
person preparing the original verification. After this time, a new verification form must
be completed. The affordable-workforce housing Applicant Income Verification form
shall be provided to the Housing and Human Services Department as shown in
Appendix 8, Exhibit 8, attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference
herein_
(d) Income Certification_ Upon receipt of the Preliminary Application for an
affordable-workforce housing unit and Applicant Income Verification form, the
Updated 02/11/09
Page 4 of 29
Developer shall require that an income certification form be executed by the potential
occupant (including the entire household) prior to occupancy of the affordable-
workforce housing unit by the occupant Income certification shall assure that the
potential occupant has an appropriate household income which qualifies the potential
occupant as an eligible family to occupy an affordable-workforce housing unit under the
affordable-workforce housing density bonus program. The affordable-workforce
Housing Applicant Income Certification form shall be provided by the Housing and
Human Services Department as shown in Appendix B, Exhibit C, is attached to this
Agreement and is incorporated by reference herein.
Random inspection of files containing required documentation to verify
occupancy in accordance with this Agreement and LDC ~ 2.06.00, may be conducted
by the Housing and Human Services Department upon reasonable notiee.
(4) Annual Proqress and Monitorinq Report. The Developer shall provide the
Housing and Human Services Department an annual progress and monitoring report
regarding the delivery of affordable-workforce housing units throughout the period of
their construction and occupancy. The annual progress and monitoring report shall, at
a minimum, provide any information reasonably required to insure compliance with LDC
~ 2.06.00, or subsequent amendments thereto. The report shall be filed on or before
September 30 of each year and the report shall be submitted by the Developer to the
Housing and Human Services Department. Failure to complete and submit the
monitoring report to the Housing and Human Services Department within sixty (60) days
from the due date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00) per day unless a
written extension not to exceed thirty (30) days is requested prior to expiration of the
sixty (60) day submission deadline. No more than one such extension may be granted
in a single year.
(5) Occupancy Restrictions. No affordable-workforce unit in any building or
strueture on the Property shall be occupied by the Developer, any person related to or
affiliated with the Developer, or by a resident manager_e
Updated 02/11109
Page 5 of 29
3. Density Bonus. The Commission hereby acknowledges that the
Developer has met all required conditions to qualify for a density bonus. in addition to
the base residential density of 10.25 units per acre. and is therefore granted a
density bonus of 2.28 density bonus units per acre. for a total density (total "
density bonus units per acre X gross acreage) of 12.53 units/ac. pursuant to LDC 3
2.06.00 The Commission further agrees that the Developer may construct thereon. in
the aggregate a maximum number of 286 units on the Property provided the
Developer is able to secure building permit(s) from Collier County.
4. Commission Aqreement During the term of this Agreement, the
Commission acting through the Housing and Human Services Department or its
successor(s) covenants and agrees to prepare and make available to the Developer
any general information that it possesses regarding income limitations and restrictions
which are applicable to the affordable. workforce. or gap Unit.
5. Violations and Enforcement
a. Violations. It shall be a violation of this Agreement and LDC 3
2.06.00 to sell or occupy, or attempt to sell or occupy, an affordable-workforce housing
unit provided under the affordable-workforce housing density bonus program except as
specifically permitted by the terms of this Agreement; or to knowingly give false or
misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the
Housing and Human Services Department or by any other persons pursuant to the
authority which is delegated to them by LDC S 2.06.00. Collier County or its designee
shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The method of
enforcement for a breach or violation of this Agreement shall be at the option of the
Commission by criminal enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.69,
Florida Statutes. or by civil enforcement as allowed by law.
b. Notice of Violation for Code Enforcement Board Proceedinqs.
Whenever it is determined that there is a violation of this Agreement or of LDC S
2.06.00, that should be enforced before the Code Enforcement Board. then a Notice of
Updated 02/11/09
Page 6 of 29
Violation shall be issued and sent by the appropriate department by certified return-
receipt requested U.S. Mail, or hand-delivery to the person or developer in violation.
The Notice of Violation shall comply with the requirements for such Notices,
c. Certificate of Occupancy. In the event that the Developer fails to
maintain the affordable-workforce units in accordance with this Agreement or LDC S
2.06,00, as amended, at the option of the Commission, building permits or eertificates
of occupancy, as applicable, may be withheld for any future planned or otherwise
approved unit located or to be located upon the Property until the entire project is in full
compliance with this Agreement and with LDC S 2.06.00, as amended.
6. Assiqnment by Commission. The Commission may assign all or part of
its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having jurisdiction over
the Property provided that it gives the Developer thirty (30) days advance written notice
thereof. The Developer may not assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or part of its
duties. obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any suecessor in interest to the
Property without the express written consent of the Commission, which consent may be
withheld for any reason whatsoever. Any attempt to assign the duties, obligations, or
promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the Property without the
express written consent of the Commission as required by this Section shall be void ab
initio.
7. Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence or portion of this Agreement
is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and all
other provisions shall remain effective and binding on the Parties_
8. Notice. Any notices desired or required to be given under this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall either be personally delivered or shall be sent by mail,
postage prepaid, to the Parties at the following addresses:
Updated 02/11/09
Page 7 of 29
To the Commission:
Collier County Housing and Human Services
Department
3050 North Horseshoe Drive Suite 110
Naples, Florida 34104
To the Developer:
Collier Davis, LLC
250 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 702
Coral Gables, FI 33134
With copy to:
Robert Pritt, Esq.
Roetzel & Andress P.A.
850 Parkshore Drive
Naples, FL 34103
Any Party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the
other Party of such new address in the manner set forth above.
9. Authority to Monitor. The Parties hereto acknowledge that the Collier
County Housing and Human Services Department or its designee, shall have the
authority to monitor and enforce the Developer's obligations hereunder.
10. Indemnify. The Developer hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify
and hold Collier County and its officers. employees, and agents harmless from and
against any and all claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses, professional
fees, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs of litigation
and judgments arising out of any claim, willful misconduct or negligent act, error or
omission, or liability of any kind made by Developer, its agents or employees, arising
out of or incidental to the performance of this Agreement.
11. Covenants. The Developer agrees that all of its obligations hereunder
shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and
shall be binding upon the Property and against every person then having any ownership
interest at any time and from time to time until this Agreement is terminated in
accordance with Section 14 below, However, the Parties agree that if Developer
transfers or conveys the Property to another person or entity, Developer shall have no
further obligation hereunder and any person seeking to enforce the terms hereof shall
look solely to Developer's successor in interest for the performance of said obligations.
Updated 02/11/09
Page 8 of 28
12. Recordinq. This Agreement shall be recorded at County's expense in the
official records of Collier County, Florida.
13. Entire Aqreement. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement
constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties hereto and shall inure to and be
binding upon their respective heirs, successors, and assigns.
14. Termination. Each affordable, workforce, or gap housing unit shall be
restricted to remain and be maintained as the required affordable, workforce, and gap
housing as provided in the LDC 32.06.04.
15. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by the
written agreement of both Parties.
16. Discrimination.
a. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents shall
discriminate against any owner or potential owner because of said owners race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or handicap.
b. When the Developer advertises, sells or maintains the affordable-
workforce housing unit, it must advertise sell, and maintain the same in a non-
discriminatory manner and shall make available any relevant information to any person
who is interested in purchasing such affordable-workforce housing unit.
c. The Developer agrees to be responsible for payment of any real
estate commissions and fees for which it is liable in the purchase and sale of
affordable-workforce units.
e. The affordable-workforce housing units shall be intermixed with,
and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the development.
f. The square footage, construction and design of the affordable,
workforce, and gap housing units shall be the same as market rate dwelling units in the
development. All physical amenities in the dwelling units, as described in item number
seven (7) of the Developer Application for affordable-workforce housing Density Bonus
shall be the same for market rate units and affordable-workforce units. For
Updated 02111/09
Page 9 of 29
developments where construction takes place in more than one phase, all physical
amenities as described in item number seven (7) of the Developer Applieation for
Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus shall be the same in both the market rate
units and the affordable-workforce units in each phase. Units in a subsequent phase
may contain different amenities than units in a previous phase so long as the amenities
for market rate units and affordable, workforce, and gap units are the same within each
phase and provided that in no event may a market rate unit or affordable-workforce unit
in any phase contain physical amenities less than those described in the Developer
Application.
17. Phasinq. The percentage of affordable-workforce housing units to which
the Developer has committed for the total development shall be maintained in each
phase and shall be constructed as part of each phase of the development on the
Property. Developer commits to --.2.9_percent affordable-workforce housing units for
this project, with 100 percent of the units in each phase consisting of affordable-
workforce units.
18. Disclosure. The developer shall not disclose to persons, other than the
potential buyer or lender of the particular affordable-workforce housing unit or units,
which units in the development are designated as affordable-workforce housing units.
19. Consistency, This Agreement and authorized development shall be
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and land development regulations of
Collier County that are in effect at the time of development. Subsequently adopted laws
and policies shall apply to this Agreement and to the development to the extent that
they are not in conflict with the number, type of affordable-workforce housing units and
the amount of affordable-workforce housing density bonus approved for the
development.
20. Affordable-Workforce Housinq Density Bonus Development Aqreement.
This Agreement is a distinct and separate agreement from "development agreements"
Updated 02111109
Page 10 of 29
as defined by Section 163.3220, Fla. Stat., as amended.
21. Preapplieation. Developer has executed and submitted to the
Development Services Department the Developer Application for Affordable-Workforce
Housing Density Bonus, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Appendix C
and ineorporated by reference herein.
22. Governino Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
23. Further Assurances. The Parties hereto shall execute and deliver, in
recordable forrn if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, and
agreements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of the
Agreement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any document
requested by the Developer to exhibit that this Agreement has terminated in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 14 above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
exeeuted as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Deputy Clerk
By: Donna Fiala, CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
Assistant County Attorney
0(\'<'-':\
?-'o
'}^
Updated 02/11/09
Page 11 of 29
DEVELOPER:
Collier Davis, LLC
250 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 702
Coral Gables, FI 33134
By: Goldmeier (NJ) Ltd, its managing member
By: Goldmeier (NJ) corp, its general partner
By: Barry Goldmeier, Vice President
Witnesses:
Witness
Printed Name
Witness
Printed Name
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF COLLIER )
The foregoing Agreement Authorizing Affordable, Workforce, and Gap Housing Density
Bonus And Imposing Covenants And Restrictions On Real Property was acknowledged
before me by
to me or has produced___~_
as
who is personally known
as identification.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this __ day of
,2009.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Updated 02/11/09
Page 12 of 29
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, LESS THE WEST 50 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4, AND
LESS THE NORTH 75 FEET, (LESS AND EXCEPT PORTION WAS NOT PROVIDED IN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
AND
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST. (LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE
NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF - NOT INCLUDED IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION).
AND
TI-IE W 1/2 OF E 1/2 OF N ]/2 OF S 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
AND
THE EAST ]/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE
NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF.
THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF TEIE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
ALL THE ABOVE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CONTAINING 22.83 ACRES OF LAND MORE OF LESS.
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
Updated 02/11/09
Page 13 of 29
GAP INCOME
(81-150% MI)
Efficiency
I Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bcdroom
4 Bedroom
TOTAL
APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT A
NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE
HOUSING UNITSIMONTHLY BASE RENTS
WORKFORCE INCOME
(61-80% MJ)
Efficiency
I Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
TOTAL
Updated 02111/09
NUMBER OF UNITS
Single Multi
Family Family
BASE RENT
Single Multi
Family Family
o
o
o
o
o
Page 14 of 29
LOW INCOME
(51 %-60% MI)
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
TOTAL
o
o
VERY LOW INCOME
(50% OR LESS MI)
Efficiency
I Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
TOTAL
o
o
(1) Base residential density allowed in this development 10.25 units/acre.
(2) Gross acreage 22.83
(3) Maximum number of affordable-workforce housing density bonus units allowed in this
development pursuant to LDC Section 2.06.00. 5 (22.83x5 = 114) units.
(4) Gross residential density of this development (including affordable-workforce housing
density bonus units) 12.53 units/acre.
(5) Percentage of affordable-workforce housing units pledged by the developer (as a
percent of the total number units in the development) 20 % .
Updated 02/11/09
Page 15 of 29
APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B
AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM
LDC S 2.06.03, provides for calculation of a density bonus for developers pledging to
construct affordable-workforce units within their development. Included in this Exhibit B are
instructions for and the tables with which to calculate the density bonus for a particular project.
Exhibit C contains the current median income and acceptable rents for very low, low, workforce,
and gap income households in Collier County.
The affordable-workforce housing density bonus rating system shall be used to determine
the mnount of the affordable-workforce housing density bonuses which may be granted for a
development based on household income level and percenUlge of affordable, workforce, and gap
housing units in the development. To use the affordable-workforce housing density bonus rating
system, Table A, below, shall be used. Table A shall be reviewed and updated if necessary on an
annual basis by the Board of County Commissioners or its dcsignce.
First, choose the household income level (very low, low, workforce, or gap) of the
affordable-workforce housing unites) proposed in the dcvclopment, as sho'WTI in Table A. Next,
determine the percent of that type of affordable-workforce housing unites) proposed in the
development compared to the total number of dwelling units in the development. From this
determination, Table A will indicate the maximum number of residential dwelling units per gross
acre that may be added to the base density.
These additional rcsidential dwelling units per gross acre are the maximum affordable-
workforce housing density bonus (A WI-IDB) available to that development. Developments with
percentages of affordable-workforce housing units which fall in between the percentages shown on
Table A shall receive an affordable-workforce housing density honus equal the lower of the two
percentages it lies between plus I/lOth of a residential dwelling unit per gross acre for each
additional percentage of affordable-workforce housing rental UIilts in the development. For
exmnple, a development which has 24% of its total rcsidential dwelling units as affordabJe-
workforce housing units, and which has an affordable housing density bonus rating of "four" will
receive an afJordable-workforce housing density bonus (A WHDB) of 4.4 residential dwelling units
per gross acre for the development.
In no event shall tbe affordable-workforce housing density bonus exceed eight (8) dwelling
units per gross acre.
Updated 02/11/09
Page 16 of 29
APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B
AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM
Please calculate your density bonus in the space provided below. Attach additional pages if
necessary.
TABLE A: AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE
HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING
MAXIMUM ALLOW ABLE DENSITY BONUS BY PERCENT OF DEVELOPMENT
DESIGNATED AS AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING
- --
Household
Product Income 10~ 200/. 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(% median) - --- --- ~- ----~-~- -
Gap 81-150%MI* 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 n/a
** (Gap)
- -
WorkforCE 61-80% MI* 2 Il 3 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
'-------' -- --~ -- -
Low 51-60% 3 4 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
MI ~
Very Low 50% 4 5 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
or lessMI
~-
'Owner-occupied only
*'May only be used in conjunction with at least 10% at or below 80% MI
Total Maximum Allowable Density = Base Density + Affordable-Workforce Housing Density
Bonus.
In no event shall the maximum gross density allowed exceed 16 units per acre.
Additional Density for Affordable Housing Density Bonus as provided for in the Collier
County LDC Section 2.06.00:
The following is based on the Automatic Density Bonus within the Affordable Housing
Density Bon us Rating System:
Providing AffordablefWorkfoTce Housiug for those at the 80% Median Iucome Level in
Collier County yields a bonus of 2.0 dwelling unit per acre wheu 10% of the total
development is designated as workforce and 3.0 dwelling units per acre when 10% is
designated as affordable (low)-
A total of 57 affordable/workforce units are pla:nned in this development, which is 20% of
the total units (286 total units are proposed). Using the information in the previous
paragraph, 20% affordable/workforce housing qualifies for a bonus of 5 dwelling units per
acre.
Density Calculated for = 22_83 acres x 5 uuits/gross acre
114 units
Updated 02/11/09
Page 17 of 29
APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT C
INCOME AND RENT LEVELS FOR THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME.
P.ursuant Chapter 74, Section 74-402 (a)(I); Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
moderate income is 61 % to 80% ofthe median income, low income is 51 % to 60% of the median
income and very low income is less than 50% of the median income.
MEDIAN INCOME 2007
$63,300 Naples, MSA (Collier County)
NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN FAMILY
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 .fi
150% 73,350 83,700 94,200 104,700 113,100 121,500 129,900 138,150
80% 39,100 44,650 50,250 55,850 60,300 64,750 69,250 73,700
60% 29,340 33,480 37,680 4] ,880 45,240 48,600 51,960 55,260
50% 24,450 27,900 31,400 34,900 37,700 40,500 43,300 46,050
35% 17,115 19,530 21,980 24,430 26,390 28,350 30,310 32,235
25% 12,225 13,950 15,700 17,450 18,850 20,250 2],650 23,025
RECOMMENDED RENTAL RATES
The Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) calculates rents to use in the State Apartment
Incentive Loan (S~) and the Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programs. The
rents given below are based on 2001 data from FHFC. Utility costs are provided from the
County's Section 8 Rental Assistance Program which is administered by the Collier County
Housing Authority.
HOUSING COSTS BASED ON 30% FAMILY INCOME
-- _______'u.______
ONE T
BEDROOM BE
UNIT UN
150% $1 ,9~L______ _$2,
80% $1,046___ .11,
60% $785 $94
-
~"---~ $654 $78
35% $458 $54
25% $327 $39
----'----- ---~----~_.._--- 1....-;....._
~O
DROOM
IT
THREE
BEDROOM
UNIT
FOUR
BEDROOM
UNIT
355
-'----
256
--'.----
2
5
-~._-
9
2
12,7:20
$l...'151__
.JI,O~
$907
$635
~-----------~
$453
$3,034
$1,618
$1,215
$1,012
$708
-~._~._.,-_._._-
$506
Updated 02/11/09
Page 18 of 29
UTILITY ALLOWANCES
ONE BIR TWO BIR THREE BIR FOUR BIR
LOCATION UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
Naples and Coastal
Collier County 71.00 91.00 128.00 156.00
Immokalee and East of
Everglades Blvd. 67.00 106.00 148.00 173.00
Golden Gate 96.00 144.00 186.00 211.00
YOU MUST DEDUCT UTILITIES TO CALCULATE NET RENTS.
Updated 02/11/09
Page 19 of 29
APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT A
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT
Date Occupancy Desired:
Your Name:
Date of Application:
Amt. Of Sec. Deposit:~
._________ Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes ~ No__
RacelNational Origin: Handicap: Yes ___ No ~__
Co- T enant Name
Present Address:
Street
City
State
Zip
Telephone No.
Name of Landlord
. _.___How Long at this Address:
Landlord's Address:
Street
City
State
Zip
Telephone No.
[fyou have resided at your present address less than 3 years, please state previons address:
Street
City
State
Zip
Telephone No.
Name of Previous Landlord
Street
City
State
Zip
Telephone No.
APPLICANT:
Present Employers Name
Address and Telephone No.
How long with Present Employer:__~...
Job Title
Gross Salary: Hourly $
Social Security Number
PreVIOUS Employers Name
Address and Telephone No.
Weekly $
Every 2 Weeks $
Birth Date
Monthly $
How long with Previous Employer _.
Job Title
CO-TENANT:
Present Employers Name
Address and Telephone No
How long with Present Employec___
Gross Salary: Hourly $___ Weekly $
Social Security Number
Job Title
. Every 2 Weeks $
l3ilth Date
___ Monthly $
Updated 02/11/09
Page 20 of 29
Previous Employers Name
Address and Telephone No..
How long with Previous Employer ______ Job Title
NAMES OF ALL WHO WILL OCCUpy APARTMENT BIRTH DATE SEX AGE SOCIAL SECURITY
I.
2.
3.
PERSONAL REFERENCES (Not Relatives)
How Long Known:~_
How Long Known:
1. Name:
2. Name:
Address:
-~---
Address:
Updated 02/11/09
Page 21 of 29
APPENDIX B, EXIDBIT B
AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME VERIFICATION
Date:
__ Social Security Number _.,_.,.
Social SecurIty Number
Applicant's Name:
Co-Tenan!'s Name:
Present Address:
-.-....--.---,,-...-
Street City State Zip
I hereby make application for a single family unit at _~n__n_'_
I hereby declare and reveal all of my sources of income,
I am aware that to leave out, omit or fail to report my assets or forms of income from pensions,
stocks, bonds, real property rent, sale or ownership is a fraudulent act punishable by law,
Knowingly falsifying information on this form is cause for refusal of occupancy.
Telephone No.
I hereby certify that this will be my pCffilanent residence and that I have no other assisted
housing.
I understand that this information is for the purpose of computing my annual income to
determine my qnalification to buy an affordable, workforce, or gap housing unit. I understand
that I am not required to surrender my ownership or rights or claimed property, pensions or
capital gains, etc.
Applicant
Amount Frequency
Received of Pay
Wages/Salary
Bonuses
Tips
Commissions
Interest Income
Trust Fund Income
Unemployment
Workman's Compensation
Welfare
Food Stamps
Social Security
Social Security Disability
Supplemental SSI
Family Assistance
Child Support
Veterans Benefits
Widows Benefits
Union Pension
Self-Employment Business,
$
$
$
$
$
$---
$
--.---..-
$
$
$
------
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-----~
$
$
$
$
-------- '-.-.-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Updated 02/11/09
Page 22 of 29
Co-Occupant
Amount Frequency
Received of Pay
$
-------
S~
$
$
$-~
$
~-
$~--
$
$
$
$
-----.,
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
--
$
$---
$._~
$------
$
------
$
$
$
_._-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-.-------
$----
$
-_...-.-----
Silent Partner, etc.
Private Insurance Pension
$
$
$-
$
$
$--
$
$
TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME
$
$
THE VERlFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT
YEAR'S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL
OCCupy THE AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP UNIT.
THE SAME MUST BE EXECUTED FOR EACH OCCUPANT OF THE HOUSEHOLD WHO
CONTRIBUTED TO THE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME. FAlLURE TO REPORT ALL
SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME WILL RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION FOR TENANCY
IN AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP HOUSING UNIT.
Updated 02/11/09
Page 23 of 29
APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT C
AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME CERTIFICATION
APPLICANT:
Present Employer:
Job Title:
Address:
Street
City
State
Zip
I,
_____, hereby authorize the release of information requested
(Applicant)
on this certification form.
Signature of Applicant
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
The foregoing was acknowledged belore me by _
Who is personally known to me or has produced ______"
identification.
as
Witness my hand and official seal this
_dayof_
"~_"___, 2009.
(notary seal)
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Updated 02/11109
Page 24 of 29
EMPLOYER CERTIFICATION
Applicant's Gross Annual Income or Rate or Pay: $__
Number of Hours Worked (Weekly):~. Frequency of Pay:
Amount of Bonuses, Tips, or other Compensation Received: $_
Monthly
$
Annually
Supervisor
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
The foregoing was acknowledged before me by__
Who is personally known to me or has produced ___________.__
identification.
as
Witness my hand and official seal this __ day of ___.________.____~__, 2006.
(notary seal)
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
TIlE CERTIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR'S
INCOME TAX RETIJRN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL OCCupy THE
AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE UNIT.
Updated 02/11/09
Page 25 of 29
APPENDIX C
DEVELOPER APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE
HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
Pursuant to LDC 9 2.06.01 please complete this fonn and submit it with any accornpanymg
documentation to the Community Development & Environmenlal Services Division, 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. ^ copy must also be provided to the Collier County
Housing and Human Services Department.
All items requested must be provided.
1. Please state what zoning districts are proposed by the applicant, if any, on the property and the
acreage of each;
MPUD on 22.83 acres
2. Has an application for rezoning been requested in conjunction with the affordable, workforce
and gap housing Density bonus')
_)(_ Yes
No
If yes, state date of application August 18, 2006
the Ordinance number ~LA.
3. Gross density of the proposed development. _12.53
and iflhe request has been approved, state
Gross acreage of the proposed development. _~2J:~
4. Are affordable-workforce housing density bonus units sought in conjunction with an
application for a plmmed unit development (PUD)') __ X . Yes No.
lfyes, please state name and location oflhe PUD and any other identifying information.
Davis_Reserve MixedJl~eJ)..lJR..:::_.Located on the soutb~?c~;L<:'Qmer of County ]lam Road and
Davis Boulevard
5.
Name of applicant
Collier Davis, LLC
Name of laJ1d developer if not the same as Applicant: .
6. Please complcte the following tables as they apply to the proposed development.
Updated 02/11/09
Paqe 26 of 29
TABLE I
Total Number of Units in Development
Type of
Unit
Efficiency
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom
Other Bedroom
TOTAL
TABLE II
GAP INCOME
81-150% MI
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Other
TOTAL
Updated 02/l 1/09
Rental
Owner
Occupied
12
128
148
....186
Number of Affordable-Workforce Housing Units
Total Number of
Affordable-Work-
force Units
in Development
Owner
Rental Occupied
Proposed Use for
Density Bonus Units
Rental
Owner
OC8lpied
occupied
In accordance with LDC Section 2.06.D3.D. ~ All owner
Page 27 of 29
WQRKFORCE INCOME
61-80% MI
Efficiency
! Bedroom
__5~
5
2 Bedroom
12
12
3 Bedroom
10
10
Other
TOTAL
"_lZ__ In accordance with LDC Section 2.06.03"D. - All
own"'L""_"" occupied
LOW INCOME
51-60% MI
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
_2..-_
5
2 Bedroom
._.L2~
12
3 Bedroom
._ill__
__..2..L...
Other
TOTAL
_3.Q _
---.iL
VERY LOW INCOME
50% OR LESS MI
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Other
TOTAL
o
~-
Updated 02/Il/09
Page 28 of 29
7. 'Please provide a physical description of the affordable-workforce units by type of unit (very low
income, Jaw income, workforce income, gap income) and by number of bedrooms. Include in
your description, for example, the square footage of each type of unit, floor coverings used
throughout the unit (carpeting, tile, vinyl flooring); window treatments; appliances provided such
as washer/dryer, dishwasher, stove, refrigerator; bathroom amenities, such as ceiling exhaust fans;
and any other amenities as applicable. Attach additional pages as Exhibit "D" if needed.
The mixed use planned unit development, named Davis Reserve Mixed Use PUD (MPUD),
shall consist of residential, commercial, and office uses. The affordable/workforce housing
will be located within the mixed use portion of this MPUD. There will be a common
architectural design element throughout the project and will be designed with a residential
urban village concept. All residential units within the mixed use portion of this MPUD will
be located on upper floors above the first floor commercial.
All units will be owner occupied and will have 600 square feet to 1,250 square feet of living
area in one, two, and three bedroom units. The dwelling units will be designed with a
minimum of vinyl tile flooring and central air conditioning. Other amenities will include
items snch as window blinds, a washer and dryer, kitchen range with oven, refrigerator,
and bathroom exhaust fans.
8. Please supply any other information which would reasonably be needed to address this request for
an affordable, workforce, and gap housing density bonus for this development. Attach additional
pages if needed.
As stated in the Davis Bonlevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict a minimum of
91 residential units shall be developed in the Subdistrict (this reflects the Density Rating
System's base density of four dwelling units per acre, applied to the total site acreage). For
the project's total density - whether it is the minimum of 91 dwelling units, or a greater
amonnt as allowed by the Density Rating System density bonus provisions and approved
via rezoning - a minimum of ten percent (10%) must be affordable housing units and
another minimum of ten percent (10%) must be workforce housing units.
Updated 02/11/09
['age 29 of 29
Item VI.A.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF I<'EBRUARY 4, 2009
I. NAME OF PETITIONERlPROJECT:
Petition No.:
Petition Name:
ApplicantfJ)eveloper:
Engineering Consultant:
Environmental Consultant:
PUD Rezone: PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Davis Reserve PUD
Collier Davis, LLC
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EarthBalance@
II. LOCATION:
The subject property is an undeveloped 22.80, acre parcel located in the south east
corner of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road, in Section 8, TOVvTIship 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
Surrounding properties arc developed or currently under construction. Residential
developmcnts occur across Davis Blvd. and County Barn Road.
ZONING
DESCRIPTION
N-
Right-of-way, then Bretonne
ParkPUD
Davis Blvd., then Terracina
Grande, a multi-story
residential building within
the Glen Eagle Devel-
opment
S-
Estates
CFPUD
Berean Baptist Church
Seacrest School
E-
CFPUD
Scacrcst School
w-
Right-of-way, then RMF-6( 4)
County Barn Road, then
Napoli condominiums
EAC Meeting
Page 2 of II
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project is proposing a development that will consist of a maximum of 286
dwelling units and a maximum of 35,000 square feet of commerciaVoffice uses on
23* acres. An AfJordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement is proposed for this
development that will set aside 20 percent (57 dwelling units) of the units as
workforce housing units (27 units) for a total bonus density of 5.0 dwelling units per
acre. The Conceptual Master Plan depicts the location of buildings, parking areas,
landscape areas, storm water management areas and 5.29* acres of preservation
area, which is located along the eastern and southern property boundaries.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element: The subject property lies within the Urban-Mixed-Use
District and since June 7, 2005 - the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-
Use Subdistrict.
FLUE provisions state that, "this Subdistrict provides for development that
incorporates traditional neighborhood and mixed-use neighborhood design
featurcs, as well as recommendations of the Community Character Plan (CCP).
These include: pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly streets; a park, small
plazas and other open spaces; and, a mix of residential and neighborhood
commercial uses. Integration of residential and commercial uses in the same
building is encouraged."
These requirements go on to state, "The commercial component shall be
interconnected with the residential component, and the commercial component
shall be conveniently located to serve residents in the nearby surrounding area.
Pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided so as to afford access from
neighboring communities to the commercial uses, residential neighborhood(s),
and open spaces and paths within the Subdistriet".
The Petitioner seeks to establish a Mixed-Use Plmmed Unit Development on the
subject property, with 286 residential units, resulting in a requested density of
12.5 units per acre. 229 of these units would comprise the residential component,
while 57 affordable and workforce residential units would be located above
ground tloor commercial establishments in mixed-use buildings. (The Petitioner
proposes to attain this 12.5 unit-per-acre density by applying a density bonus
awarded for providing affordable and workforce housing.) The application packet
includes a proposed Affordable Workforce Housing Density Bonus Agreement
(A WHDBA).
EAC Meeting
Page 3 of II
This Subdistrict is made up of two distinctly difJerent areas, tracts, or
"components" - the Commercial component, and the Residential component _
and developing them is governed by distinctly different provisions.
Please note that staff has assessed the proposal at length and believes the
Petitioner's interpretation of certain Subdistrict provisions is inconsistent
with the FLUE. Staff reads the Subdistrict provisions for this Mixed-Use
Planned Unit Development as expressly limiting residential development to
234 units, resulting in a density of 10.25 units per acre, based upon a
consistent application of the density bonuses requested. 187 of these 234
dwellings would comprise the residential component, while no less than 47
affordable and workforce residential units would be located above ground
floor commercial establishments in mixed-use buildings.
Threc significant issues are standing points of disagreement between Petitioner's
interpretation and Comprchensivc Planning staffs assessment, as follows:
-,/ Whether the overall density is limited because additional density cannot be
derived from locating affordable-workforce housing in the commercial part of the
PUD, where bonuses are already awarded;
-,/ Whether density bonuses can be derived from affordable-workforce
housing units that are not geographically located in the residential part of the
PUD; and
-,/ Whether density blending, as rcsidential density generated from
calculations including tbe commercial tract can be transferred to the residential
part of the PUD.
Staff believes the provisions of the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-
Use Subdistrict are being applied as adopted. The petitioner disagrees with staff's
application of the provisions of this Subdistrict. In an effort to change staffs
position, the Petitioner asked the County Attorney's Office (CAO) to provide an
opinion regarding the Board of County Commissioners' intentions based upon
Minutes of BCC deliberation on this Subdistrict, and the pertinent provi~siDns in
the Subdistrict. After review and analysis of thc Minutcs and Subdistrict
language, thc CAO found them to be inconclusive with respect to the BCC's
intent. Petitioncr then requested that each of these three points of disagreement be
returned to the BCC to discuss their original intent, as part of this proposed re-
zoning action. Staff believes the Subdistrict text accurately ret1ects the BCC's
action in adopting it.
EAC Meeting
Page40fll
Conservation & Coastal Manaeement Element:
In accordance with Objective 2.1 (d), until the County's Watershed Management
Plans are completed, all development located within areas identified on Fignre I
within the CCME shall be evaluated to determine impacts to natural wetlands,
flowways, or sloughs. The Objective also states that the County shall require the
applicant to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs
or, when not possible, to ensure any impact is minimized and compensated for by
providing the same conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact.
The evaluation provided in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identified
three isolated wetlands within the project site, two of which will be preserved as
part of a larger contiguous preserve. The third, due to its size, proximity to Davis
Boulevard, and location within the project site, will be directly impacted by
development as allowed by Policy 6.2.4, As required by Objective 2.1 (f), all
necessary state and federal environmcntal permits will be required prior to
issuance of a final development order.
~
Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality
standards".
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the spccific and
cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed
in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an
attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water
(discharge) to the estuarine system".
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to
mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing
lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak
flow attenuation during storm events.
The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 mid 6.2 of
the Conservation & Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons:
Twenty-five percent (25 %) of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on-
site and be protected by a permanent conservation easement prohibiting further
development. The preservation of native vegetation includes canopy, understory
and ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible.
The applicant is proposing to use the preserve to store treated stormwater when
run-off exceeds one and one-half inches. The proposed preserve is comprised
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of II
solely of jurisdictional wetlands and uplands with hydric soils, Hydrological
indicators show that seasonal high water levels occasionally pond approximately
12 inches above surface within the wetlands on site, and based on the site
elevations provided in the EIS, would also inundate the uplands on the property
during this time. Based on soil investigations, typical wet season water level is
about 6 to 12 inches below surface. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1 (5) (b), receipt
of treated storm water discharge into preserves is allowed provided such use does
not result in adverse impacts to naturally occurring native vegetation or harm to
any listed species. Policy 6.1.1 (5) (b) requires discharge of treated stormwater to
preserves having wetlands to meet water quality standards as set forth in Chapter
62-302 F.A.C Based on the information by the applicant, staff find the project to
be consistent with Policy 6.1.1 (5) (b). Final design of the project will be
permitted through the SFWMD when the project comes in for final development
order.
Habitat management and exotic vegetation removallmaintenance plans are
required at the time of Site Devclopment Plan/construction plan submittal. In
accordance with Policy 6.1. 1 (6), the management plan shall include methods to
address control and treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management,
stormwater management, and maintenance of permitted facilities, Preserve areas
shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Planl Council. Prohibited exotic vegetation
shall be removed from the entire development during construction and the site
shall be maintained free of prohibited exotics in perpetuity.
Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the
time of Site Development Plan/construction plan submittal, and will be required
to meet the minimum planting area requirement pursuant to Policy 6.1.7 and the
Land Development Code.
The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy
6,1.8 has been satisfied.
Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and--'
6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency
permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site
improvements (Site Development Plan/construction plans). As stated in Policies
6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where pcrmits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts
to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such
impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation
of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area, except for
wetlands that are part of a Watershed Management Plm1 preserve area.
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 1l
In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the
PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the
PUD document. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity
detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish
and wildlife conservation and preservation.
Wildlife surveys for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 are included in
the Environmental Impact Statement (ElS). Wildlife habitat management plans for
listed species are required at the time of Site Development Plan/construction plan
submittal, where applicable. No listed wildlife species have been identified on the
project site.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Stormwater Manae:ement:
Davis Reserve sits within the Lely Canal Basin and according to Collier County
Ordinance 2001-27 governing discharge amounts, the site is limited to an
allowable discharge rate of 0.06 cfs per acre. The site also sits ,-,;thin the limits of
the Lely Area Storm water Improvement Project (see attached LASIP map).
The petitioner's engineer has stated that the project will apply for a SFWMD
permit during the Site Development design phase. Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the
Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water management
aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC
except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated storm water to be discharged
into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." However, in this case, the
engineer has stated his intention to incorporate the preserve areas into the
stormwater management system.
The proposed stormwater management system will utilize a wet detention area
(lake) for water quality detention and peak flow attenuation. The engineer
proposes a control elevation of9.0 ft NGVD, but that elevation will need approval
from SFWMD. The engineer proposes to grade and berm the area so that all
runoff initially flows into the lake with no direct discharge into the preserve. A
weir will be installed and the crest of the weir will be at the water quality
treatment elevation. This will force water to back up through culverts and into the
preserve area during storm peaks. The water level in the preserve will draw down
to its natural level as the lake discharges through the control structure.. This
drawdown must occur in ten days or less for the project to meet SFWMD 25-year,
3-day storm event criteria.
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 11
LiDAR topography from January 2001 is attached. Historic flow in the area was
to the south-southwest but as a result of County Barn Road being raised and
swaled the flow is almost directly south.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The majority of the site is vegetated with pine fIatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 411).
Topography on-site is relatively fiat with elevations on-site nmging from
approximately 8.42 to 9.41 feet NGVD. Three slightly depressed wetlands occur
on the east and north sides of the property.
The majority of the site contains hydric soils (Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone
Substrate). Non-hydric soils (Boca Fine Sand) occur at the south west corner of
the site, adjacent to County Barn Road.
Wetlands:
The subject property contains approximately 2.57 acres of wetlands. These
include cypress, hydric Melaleuca and wet prairie. Hydrological indicators show
that seasonal high water levels occasionally pond approximately 12 inches above
the surface. Normal pool, or the typical wet season water level, is about 6 to 12
inches below surface based on soil investigations.
Approximately 1.53 acres of wetlands will be impacted as a result of this project.
Mitigation will be provided by enhancement and preservation of rcmaining on site
wetlands. Wetlands identified for preservation include those located within upland
habitats forming a large contiguous preserve. Impacts to wetlands will be assessed
using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) to detennine the
mnount of mitigation needed to accommodate for loss of wetland habital, as the
project moves through permitting with the South Florida Water Managemcnl
District (SFWMD). It is anticipated that approximately 0.8 forested frcshwatcr
credits may bc required for this project. Any additional mitigation which may be
required will be provided by purchase of mitigation credits from eithcr Big
Cypress Mitigation Bank or Panther Island Mitigation Bank.
Preservation ReQuirements:
Approximately 21.17 acres of native habitat occur on the subject property. These
include 18.96 acres of pine Ilatwoods (FLlJCFCS Code 4lJ), 1.17 acres of
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 11
cypress (FLUCFCS Code 621) and 1.04 acres of wet prairie (FLUCFCS Code
643). Also on site are approximately 1.66 acres of near monoculture of Melaleuca.
In accordance with the requirements of the Growth Management Plan and Land
development Code, 25% (5 .29 acres) of native vegetation are required to be
retained on site. This is satisfied by 5.29 acres of preserve shown on the PUD
master plan. The area to be preserved is a contiguous area which closely aligns
with preserves and Wldeveloped land on adjacent properties. Staff visited the
property with the environmental consultant in evaluating the site for the preserve
requirement.
1be Berean Baptist Church located to the south of tbe proposed project and
contains Wldeveloped land along the east side of the parcel. Habitats within this
Wldcveloped area consist of pine flatwoods with scattered cypress. This wooded
area will align with the preserve on the south side of Davis Reserve.
The Seacrest School PUD is located to the east and south of the proposed project.
The preserve associated with the proposed Davis Reserve site will align with the
larger (new) preserve for Seacrest Upper and Lower School, however the new
entrance road for the school from Cowlty Barn Road will bisect the preserves.
Listed Species:
EarthBalance@ biologists visited the site several times beginning in December
2002 through January 2005 to map on-site habitats. A red-cockaded woodpecker
(RCW) cavity tree survey was performed on July 23, 2004. No red-cockaded
woodpeckers or cavity trees were identified on site.
An additional listed plant and wildlife survey was conducted on October 26, 2006.
Biologists looked for evidence of nests or day beds that could be used by Big
Cypress fox squirrel; red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees and gopher tortoise
hurrows. In addition, a listed plant species survey was conducted. No listed
wildlife species or evidence of listed wildlife species were observed during this
survey.
A total of four listed plant species (Tillandsia spp.) were observed during the
October 26, 2006 survey. None of the plants identified are listed federally. Most
of the listed plants wcrc found on slash pine and cypress. A small percentage,
were obscrved on Mclaleuca. Density of Tillandsia species varied through out the
site, the locations of which are shown in tbe EIS. The applicant has proposed
relocating Tillandsia species from proposed development areas to the on-site
preserve, prior to construction.
EAC Meeting
Page 9 of I ]
At the request of County staff, a two-day listed species survey was conducted on
August 5 and 6, 2008. The survey focused on evidence of nests or day beds that
could be used by Big Cypress fox squirrel and nest cavities that could be used by
red-cockaded woodpecker. All suitable upland habitats were also surveyed for the
occurrence of any other protected wildlife, including the presence of active or
inactive gopher tortoise burrows. No listed wildlife species or evidence of listed
wildlife species were observed during this or any of the other surveys.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
StafJ recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-
6829 "Davis Reserve PUD" with the following conditions:
Stormwater Management:
I. Thc petitioner is rcquircd to obtain a SFWMD ERl' or Surface Water
Management permit prior to Sitc dcvelopment Plan approval by Collier
County.
Environmental:
No site specific stipulations.
EAC Meeting
Page 100fl1
PREPARED BY:
Kl, P.E.
ENGINEERING IEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
-~b
STEPHEN LENBER ER
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~&~)
KA D SELEM, AICP
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
SUSAN SON
AL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
GINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
:3 bE;c 08
DATE
/J /9ILwrf>
DATE
IdJ;D/D~ ____
DATE
/!/- !d -{)J-
.
DATE
EAC Meeting
Page 11 of II
~
/, X ---L
LUAM D. w~. DIR,oeTOR
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
12- 1'2-:.'CJf?
DATE
r z.!z"tr! 08
DATE
JEFF\E. RIGHT
ASSlfTJ T COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICI{ OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED BY:
J~. SdfMYftADMfNIST A[()R, ... ... ~i~j~r
C~;;~ITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DlVrS]ON
'u......
,""W!-
.''''.11
.'~,.".
_""'''
1D".'.....
0_"
O"'.U
0-'
,>.O"'.U
.,0'.-.
i,'EJ'.t.'"
\,eU.?
'.;,...,-u
..-.
."-0
_~.I
...,."
!I!',~:~
"
ORMWATERIMPROVEMENTPROJECT
CONSTRUCTION PLAN
ij
.t-~-
~ --1-;
<,:?'~~~~-,~--1-1
I ';" - i 'I
;L_,,'-:jY ~ '~~~r; ~<', ~il
:'.~ ",~,~"~.,,
'.
''(
.;;~ 'W1-' '1 ~J"
~~ 1 - J~lf
~ 'i'
_,:.:p,::I;::11
-', <~ 1'- "-':,,_~),_/- ., :,1 -- _:
'~\.>. -Jj":~~:---RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCKRD--~
J..'( O~----';1.-- "
-;', ~'
;/; _/- '>
.'
i/ ~:i
":'
, "; ~ -:'"'
J !~UI
Q
0:
<:
0:
"
'"
t
<:
-::;,
o
o
I I
. 'I I .
<'Pl,
~---,---!~$.
'-;;;;.:_ W. _..~.I ... :
,q>
.
<'f
. ~!~:
--ji:i::
~',;
Legend
,
,
,
N
W<fJE
S
0.5
'C"", '_C,.,,' ..(.....'.,,-.. ,..'k-:>
,--'- - -~ -- ::'(:~.:"\~:::i-:"''''Y':i
',-,~h"/",:'m.<
- ..'7=:';{,'- <."/
I ~"''' -<
.r '~_.\</J_ - '-: ~
~ . : \::(,e .
: ~"'~.
r ~~'~~-: _:~3~.>- -- ;'oj
,
Completed in 06 and 07
Completed In FY 08
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
D Project Boundary J
COLVER COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DMS/ON
ROAD MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT SECTION
Revised;10!2912008
...
'-'.'
','\
o
I
I
Miles
',,~
I
/
Project
,~"
(Fiscal
_--.!ear)
PrOject Name
8
I ,.
11
I'__~ _~___~___
ILe1y Main Canal ~uth of Rat Ham_ _Roadj
.1 L~_ly__~a_~pr C:<l:~_<!J_VYl:'!_sJ.9_LJtf~!I_ (If~'{isQ E}~)'__?9~Jh 1____
Nort~~~st ROY<ll__yYg()sL~_~~__c::u!1J~!:L_ _ ______ __ _ _____ ____ ____
- ------------ ------------ ------------~---
- --I
-- ---
~~_____tYl!bitaker Road YVeir S~~~LfT1P..-,. ~_~9x Culvert
____~~_I~Jy Manor CalJ~LYY~_~~,Q_Ll!f<lI!.rr[l:'!yiso Bay Northl
2011 ---~}~~:~::: ~:~~-6~i:'::-'~~:1 ------------
16 --l~~~,~~i~~~~~~~~~~aJ --:~-~=-=-= _=-______
2012 __..17 _~_a.2!es Manor Ditch ~-'Jclos_~ ___ __
18 IlJiL "!.t.Q~b _
1__________-
___~ _ j!::la!Q?Q:!an Cr~ek (CB_ R.Q._:_By~erla to Lely Maml_
~O _ fEunty BarnB.~____ _ ____________
2013 ~1 CrewsBg'!S!~ExtL_ ____
22 LCoP'~ ~!'!l1e J$_BJ3.~~~J___________ _______
L__
23 IDavisJ~!'{q.""yy~.!f__ _ __
24 IDavlS Blvd_ ____ _ __
2014 _ .J~~sandY L_8nelWmgso'=!llilnterconnect__ __ __
26 WlnQsouth Ai!Qark West Channel
- }7 - WlngsouthAlrt?a~East C~hannel---===--==-=------
_m_______ _____________
I Map No.
_L____ __._ _.___.__.________
, 1
I 2006 i-.-------
I---j~- Lely Branch Canal (I~atHam ~Kings Lake - PH _~
I 2007 i- 3 _ry1I~i.Q~~!()l')m~a_n~_R~~to!at!~~tExotic_yeg: ~e_r:!l~v1il)
I
I :__i_ Rg.Y~vy~Q..d._.YY.eir and L~~ Interconnect UpQrades -----------------
. 2008 6 _ _ _L~Jy_~.~[,1'OFc:!3~_l!!_'~_a~t.9!:!tI'all(PtLlB~~yJb__=?Jf?)_
, 9 !-_E?lY_~_?11)__C;an~Lg3~_b?LB.;3Y) .
I--------:__~ Nor:!b.e_~Boyal W~E.~nla Barbara Rd ICanal ~_ -- ___n___
I : 6A !o-~J0_a.!lQ~_G,an_'!L.E3~LOutfElL(Et!.:1J3 _~!?~_!b__.J~__1(2L__
I 2009 :----.L___ L_~_11!1rallch Canal (PH 1B North- US,41 to Rat. Ham,)
I I___~__ ~iti9.a~i9I)b~~_a__'::ark .Q.~fl~_~l!~ti2ili!!!~_land RestQfatiQn (PlaJ:lJi.olll___
I-n +
I 2010
RattLe~D~iltt~!l1m9c,!l.__B.q_!3o~_i;l,Ily~rt _
CRAie R. WOODWARD.
MARK J. WOODWARD
ANTHONY P. PIRCS, JR. .
J. CHRISTUI'IJFR In.\1BARDO
STEVEN V. BLOUi'<l
CARRIE E. I Aur,.\lAN
CARLO E Z,,,,....1I'OCNA
jE'\NIFER L. DEVRIES
JE'\NIFrRM,TE:\:--Jr;y
. (Board Cenified Real Estate
Attorney)
. (Board Certified City, COHill)'
dlld Loc.u Government
Anomey}
}200 'famiami Trail N.
Suite 2110
Naples, PI. 54105
IU (259)649-6555
fAX (259)649-7542
www.wpl-lega1.com
,0~lll
WOODWARD, PIRES & LOMBARDO, P.A.
Attorneys-At-Law
'1>
()
Ii ;;
0~:;X;
:; , !
k ,,' ~" . L ,
May 6, 2009
TO: Collier County Planning Commissioners
RE: Davis Reserve MPUD; PUDZ-2004-AR-6829
Dear Commissioners:
This law firm was retained last week to represent the Napoli Luxury
Condominiums, Inc. ["Napoli"] with regards to the current
Application/Petition and the proposed MPUD document associated with AR-
6829, scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at its May
7, 2009 meeting. As I have a pre-existing scheduled meeting that conflicts
with the hearing I will more than likely not be able to attend.
Napoli objects to the pending rezoning application for a number of
reasons and requests that the Planning Commission forward this
application to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation
of denial
The burden is on the applicant to show that the proposed
development conforms strictly to the County's GMP, its elements. and
objectives. We agree with the County Staff that the excessive number of
proposed dwelling units is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element
[FLUE].
.We also believe that this project as proposed is incompatible with
the existing surrounding communities and land uses and is not
complementary to the surrounding land uses in the community, as required
by Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element [FLUE]. Florida case law
[using Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 464
(1986)] defines complementary as "of, relating to, or suggestive of
complementing, completing, or petfecting." Complement is defined as
"something that fills up or completes: as a: something that fills out and
makes petfect: a completing or consummating part, integral, or
component...." These definitions would suggest that the project does not
qualify as " complementary" to the surrounding land uses, based in part
upon 1.) density; 2.) minimum dwelling unit size, 3.) setbacks., and 4.)
inconsistencies with the LDC.
In addition to the above, we submit the following issues with regards
to the pending application and MPUD documents:
- 1 -
1. as to the commercial mixed use [MU] tract, the Master Plan fails to
depict the "outline of the proposed building footprint and an indicator of
the proposed building height for each structure" as to commercial uses as
required by Section 10.02.13.A.1.e of the LDC [see attached "A",
retrieved on line 5-6-2009].
2. the Master Plan does not include typical cross sections of all major,
collector, and local streets, public or private, within the PUD, as required
by Section 1 0.02.13.A.1.h of the LDC.
3. the Master Plan fails to depict "the location of existing roads, rights-
of-way, and pedestrian systems within 1,500 feet of the proposed PUD" as
required by Section 10.02.13.A.1.i of the LDC.
4. the language in the FLUE states that as to this property:
"Projects within this Subdistrict shall comply with the following standards
and criteria: Allowable commercial uses in the commercial component
shall be limited to those uses permitted in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning
districts as contained in the Collier County Land Development Code,
Ordinance 04-41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of this
Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005-25 adopted on June 27,2005)."
Section 1.2.A.3 of the proposed MPUD provides that "all uses
permitted by right and conditional use, in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning
districts" are permitted uses in the commercial area of this development.
Thus, while in every other C-1, C-2 and C-3 District, the conditional
uses are just that, conditional uses for which a party has to apply and
obtain approval by the BCC/BZA after notice and public hearing(s), this
property owner would have all the conditional uses [including dance halls
and discotechques, #7911, SIC] as a matter of right without any
subsequent review or approval by the CCPC or BCC/BZA. Thus the public
would not be afforded any safeguards or entitled to any review of adverse
impacts, as would be the case if the property owner had to follow the
conditional use process.
5. The language "in effect at the time of SOP approval" in Sections
1.2.A.3.a-c of the proposed MPUD is inconsistent with preceding language
in the MPUD and FLUE as to uses "in effect as of the date of adoption of
the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict".
6. A Stipulated Final Judgment where Collier Davis LLC received
$200,000 compensation for a 30 wide drainage and utility easement [see
attached "B"] appears to relate to the most westerly 30 feet of the property
that is the subject of this MPUD . Paragraph 6 of the Stipulated Final
Judgment states that Collier Davis LLC will be entitled to utilize the east
ten feet of Parcel 131 [the 30 foot easement] for purposes of meeting its
landscape buffer requirement per the Collier County Land Development
Code, provided that no vegetative material or other improvements may be
place or installed within Parcel 131.
A. If no vegetative material or other improvements can be
installed anywhere in the 30 foot area, how can the easternmost 10 feet
satisfy the "landscape buffer" requirements? It appears that a "deviation"
or "variance" was granted in the eminent domain action and I question the
validity of such in that proceeding.
- 2 -
B. The development standards in the proposed MPUD
document, at page 7, state that the setback from external MPUD
boundaries is 10 feet, while the Stipulated Final Judgment prohibits any
structures ["improvements"] in that area along County Barn Road, i.e. a
minimum 30 foot setback from the western property line.
7. the MPUD document and "Conceptual Master Plan" lack detail to
ensure that the following conditions and requirements of the FLUE [at
pages 43-45] are achieved or complied with. All of the following should be
included within the Master Plan and the MPUD document, and provided
prior to any consideration of the MPUD by the CCPC or BCC, in order to
properly evaluate whether the proposed project is compatible with and
complementary to the surrounding land uses:
A. the frontage of the commercial component shall be no greater
than twice its depth. There is a scale, but no numbers depicting
length/depth.
B. the required common architectural theme for all
commercial buildings has not been provided. The proposed required
common architectural theme should be part of the submittal and review
and included as part of the MPUD document and not left to a non-noticed
permitting or SOP process. Elevations and details need to be provided
now to determine if there is compliance with the FLUE.
C. As there are no building "footprints" depicted, no required
pedestrian connections between buildings are shown.
D. As there are no building footprints, there is no indication that the
parking areas are internal to the site and screened from County Barn
Road and Davis Blvd.
E. The required park is not depicted. The areas marked "plaza" are
in reality a "traffic circle" and roadway intersection and the traffic circle was
denoted as a "traffic circle" on a prior site plan in the County's files.
There may also be additional issues and possibly materials raised or
presented at the hearing not only by Napoli, but other residents/property owners
in surrounding communities. There will probably not be opposition to the MPUD
from the Berean Baptist Church, based upon Paragraph 4 of an agreement
between the Applicant and the church [see attached "C"].
We appreciate your consideration of my client's concerns and issues with
this pending rezoning petition and request that the Planning Commission forward
this application to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
denial.
q.
Enclosure(s)
cc: w/enc1.
Kay Deselem
Jeff Klatzkow
- 3 -
calendar year as scheduled by the county manager, except:
1. Any amendments to theAccess Management Plan maps (Appendix V) may be
made more often than twice during the calendar year if related to, and if submitted and
reviewed in conjunction with submittal and review of, the following types of development
orders: Rezoning, PUD amendment, Development of Regional Impact (DRI) approval,
DR! amendment, conditional use, Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, SDP
amendment. subdivision approval (including plats, plans, and amendments),
construction approval for infrastructure (including water, sewer, grading, paving), and
building permit (for single family dwelling only.
2. Amendments to the Code (See section 10.02.10 A. below for requirements).
The procedure for amendment to this Code shall be as provided in section 10.03.05.
This Code may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the consistency of the
Code with the growth management plan.
10.02.09 Submittal Requirements for Text Amendments to the LDC
Amendments to this Code may be made not more than 2 times during any calendar year as
scheduled by the county manager, except:
A. Amendments to this Code may be made more often than twice during the calendar
year if the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. by at least a super-majority
vote, directs that additional amendments be made for specific purposes.
10.02.10 Submittal Requirements for Amendments to Development Orders [Reserved]
10.02.11 Submittal of Streetlight Plans
A. Streetlights. All street lighting plans shall be prepared by an electrical engineer.
10.02.12 Reserved.
Editor's note: Ord. No. 05-27, 93.YY, repealed 910.02.12 in its entirety. Formerly said section
pertained to building or land alteration permits as enacted by Ord. No. 04-41.
10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures
A. Application and PUD master plan submission requirements. Applications for amendments
to, or rezoning to PUD shall be in the form of a PUD master plan of development along with a
list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The PUD
application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from
the Land Development Code. The PUD master plan shall have been designed by an urban
planner who possesses the education and experience to qualify for full membership in the
American Institute of Certified Planners; andlor a landscape architect who possesses the
education and experience to qualify for full membership in the American Society of Landscape
Architects, together with either a practicing civil engineer licensed by the State of Florida, or a
practicing architect licensed by the State of Florida, and shall be comprised. at a minimum, of
the following elements:
EXHIBIT
iA
1. PUD master plan. The PUD master plan shall include the following information to
graphically illustrate the development strategy: The Community Character Plan For
Collier County, Florida (April 2001) should be referenced as a guide for development
and redevelopment in the PUD district:
a. The title of the project and name of the developer;
b. Scale, date, north arrow;
c. Boundaries of the subject property, all existing streets and pedestrian
systems within the site, watercourses, easements , land uses and zoning
districts of abutting property including book and page numbers of platted parcels,
section lines, and other important physical features within and adjoining the
proposed development;
d. Identification of all proposed tracts or increments illustrating boundaries
within the PUD such as. but not limited to: residential: office and retail;
commercial; industrial; institutional; conservation/preservation; lakes and/or other
water management facilities;common open space ; types of buffers with a
cross-section for any buffer which deviates from that which is otherwise
required by the land development code; the location and function of all areas
proposed for dedication or to be reserved for community and/or public use; and
areas proposed for recreational uses including golf courses and related facilities,
and provisions for ownership. operation, and maintenance. All non-residential
tract dimensions and boundaries shall be illustrated on the master plan;
e. Identification of all proposed and permitted land uses pursuant to section
2.03.06 of this Code within each tract or increment describing: acreage;
proposed number of dwelling units ; proposed density and percentage of the
total development represented by each type of use: or in the case of commercia(,
industrial, institutional or office. the acreage and maximum gross leaseable floor
area and an outline of the proposed buildinq footprint and an indication of the
proposed buildino heiaht for each structure within the individual tracts or
increments. Descriptions of the relationship of the proposed land uses to each
other within the PUD and to land uses abutting/surrounding the project;
f. The location and size (as appropriate) of all existing drainage, water, sewer,
and other utility provisions;
g. The location of all proposed major internal thoroughfares and pedestrian
accessways. including interconnecting roadways within the PUD as well as with
abutting uses:
h Tvoical cross sections of all maior. collector. and local streets, public or
private. within the PUD;
i. The location of proposed and existina roads. riahts-of-wav. and pedestrian
svstems within 1.500 feet of the proposed PUD;
j. The overall acreage and proposed gross density for the PUD;
k. Information on previous and recent uses of land:
I. Proposed vehicular ingress and egress points:
m. Any other relevant information determined to be necessary by the planning
services department director.
2. PUD application. The applicant shall submit data supporting and describing the
petition for rezoning to PUD in the form of a PUD application that includes a
development standards table, developer commitments and a list of deviations from the
~~
~
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
::I
~
-
c::> -
cY")~
'-C)ll!l
('"II"") 8_
-
--
..... JIll ....a
c;J ::. c...I
~ ~ ~ -
_0"
~g
.......--
..... 0'"
C""") a..
-- o I!:
..:!!
~~~
o =s x
~-
--...
---
CIC) ... H
Lr)O~
--- .: ...
..... ~ -
..... .. ~
~-g
"'~
--
lin;;
8;:;:;
=-
.. ..
.. -
~...
.. -
-~
.
.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACfION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida,
Petitioner,
Case No. 06-0876-CA-lDM
v.
CHARLES R. KEllER, et aI.,
Parcel(s): 131
Respondents.
/
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come bef~~:!he-f\'fE~n~.()i,~t Motion made by Petitioner,
/ \\'-- ,~~,,'-Jj, V '. '. ....
COLLIER COUNTY, FlORIDA,!>>(~~ough its und~e)L~unsel, and Respondent,
,,' "'/ " \
COllIER DAVIS, llc., for e~ 9"~c&:~~te~.r~gme~t.~ to\ Parcel 131, and it
appearing to the Court that the ~art{;'~~~ii(1~~~~~~~~oti0n, the Court finding that
the compensation to be paid b;\!i:ci~1 \v'i;~ ~~ns~o~ ~e Respondent, COllIER
\~~, \, .ik ; i """",-/
DA VIS. LLC.. and the Court bei~~~se fully advis~ti~~~ises, it is thereupon
. &' "
~- ~:-"'''''-'' ,,",,/" \\ "
ORDERED AND ADJUDGro ' mat:'. .....,,~... ~..'" C\,'./
"" f I F \ \Z './/
~_ -..' _"r'
~-"..~,-"~"'--"'-
I. Respondent, COllIER DAVIS, llC., shall recover from Petitioner,
COllIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, the swn of Two Hundred Thousand and No/lOO Dollars
($ 200,000.00) for Parcel 131, as full payment for the property interests taken and for damages
resulting to the remainder, if less than the entire property was taken, business damages, and for all
other damages in connection with said parcel.
~.P
COLLIER DAVIS, llC, shall recover from Petitioner the swn Oft' n!B
!lI):><;
i:2'~
::':0
,~; c" ~
-; CE
2.
EXHIBIT
I 1~f3;1
r.
'r) :.
~':',
~(
-,Lri
~<;-<
-; ~:::
%r;.
-:: ~
~
~
~
q."
f("'>
-
r
....
IS ~
-
~
'-0 8:L'
"- ,:;,
::-::":-:7
... ~~-: "-',"
::z ~
s>
w
w
........
~
\.D
~
~
"'"'
o.r')
........
~
--
I:>:::
C)
.
.
Five Tbousand and No/lOO Dollars ($25,000.00) for all attorney's fees, expert witness fees and
costs relating to Parcel 131. No other costs and attorney's fees, including supplemental, shall be
awarded in this cause.
3. Petitioner will be entitled to a credit in the amount of$225,000, from the good faith
deposit disbursed in accordance with the Stipulated Order of Taking.
4. The Clerk of this Court shall forthwith disburse the swn of Twenty-Nine
Tbousand and Five Hundred and No/lOO Dollars ($29,500.00) remaining from the deposit,
made payable to Petitioner, Collier County, as a refund for Parcel!3!, via wire transfer from the
Clerk of Courts to the Board of County Commissioners, Account #336-163656-369802-60101.
5. Title to Parcel 131 i~~,~~h.~Q~.i}'eQ~:being fully described in Exhibit
,,1.,/ ''-of,
"A" attached hereto and incorpofjlie~!!inL,,;v~ch vested in Pet\tioin;r pursuant to the Stipulated
! ,/ \~l:;;w"<"" "'___'_"'''_''_'.,.__",i-'~\ \;
Order of Taking dated Decembt.,!~ 5'f200.7~~d~' " ~\,heril.t of ore made, is approved,
! {Ti--;''::::';''! / /'"\ "\ ",r\ If, \
, "I ( .. ( I ': \ i 'v I If! !
I I ,I, I' 'f...../ ~ I , ,
ratified, and confinned.i_ \\ '- /1\ \J / I i'j I .1 !
\ '~'"''' \ ,-..~.;:", "',,~-~.".. "'c:..,._ ,~~ '::::':::i":~,t ~ /
6. COLLIER DA V\b;:LLC, will be entitled !Mtlti]~e, ~~otten feet of Parcel 131 for
~,~, '\ '9:~ .I /~~!
/"" \, I' '" I" ... -''''''''''/
"A~ \,- ""1 ' ; ,._'
purposes of meeting its landscape ~~~~ui~,rn~~t)l<:r~~~cli~county Land Development
Code, provided that no vegetative materiar'Of$_~.b~ents may be placed or installed within
Parcel 131.
7. The Notice of Lis Pendens filed in the above-styled cause and recorded in Official
Record Book 4049, Page 2592 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida be dismissed as to
Parcel No. 131.
8. All proceeds awarded to Respondent, Collier Davis, LLC, are subject to the claims, if
any. of the mortgagee, Malinmore Corporation.
9. This Stipulated Final Judgment is to be recorded in the Official Records of Collier
County, Florida.
......
~
<.0
~
~
Q.,
U'")
.......
~
--
~
C>
. .
DONE AND ORDERED in Naples, Florida, this -1l day of iJ/~"'Al'J~), 2007.
~~
C CUlT COURT JUDGE
-""'1 ,sf
j},'\j.Vv
conformed copies to:
/Ellen T. Chadwell, Esquire
/Bruce M. Harris, Esquire
IMichael A. Currea, Esquire
IKevin Hendricks, Acquisition Mgr./Transp.
.I Accounting - ~ ~~
v ::Xz,'lV\ a64)!~\ml' ~~l~
. JOINT M~TION ~~~;)'mm!,~~AL JUDGMENT .
The Parties hereby stIPula~,.~~pectfullY request~sJCQ,~ to enter the foregomg
,,' " ,/ " -,
Stipulated Final Judgment as to/~ar<;(ili1i~ ' \
is I\~ day o~~'f' (~\S'll:~)\;':
\ (""- ;(\ ~../,';\, \.""},,,/,.)~. ,~,
i", "-.-./ '-~.,.-~ -'~""'._'~'" -
CE M S, ESQU ~ " :'.. .... ,L@;r. CHADWELL, ESQUIRE
ar No. 00 3697 \~/~\ '11'\,..f10p~,Bar No. 0983860
HARRIS. HARRIS, BAUERLE &.~~ /<;~gNTY A ITORNEY'S OFFICE
120 I East Robmson Street.~ / "'" .... --:"c'\:!laimon Turner Building
Orlando. Florida 32801 '.UI (\\<'/3301 East Tamiami Trail
(407) 843-0404- Telephone Naples, Florida 34112
(407) 843-0444- Facsimile (239) 774-8400 - Telephone
A ITORNEY FOR RESPONDENT, (239) 774-0225 - Facsimile
COLLIER DAVIS, LLC A ITORNEY FOR PETITIONER
~\thi~!Jf 'day of llu.. ,2007.
,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Joint Motion on
Stipulated Order of Taking has been furnished by U.S. Mail to all parties listed below on this r
dayof~ ,2007.
,
A/A ~ Ct .P'~___
-
ELLEN T. CHADWELL, ESQUIRE
~
~
'-0
~
CJ
g..,
Ir)
.......
~
~
e::>:::
C)
.
.
PARCEL 131
Collier Davis, LLC
c/o Bruce M. Harris, Esq.
HARRIS, HARRIS, BAUERLE & SHARMA
120 I East Robinson Street
Orlando, Florida 32801
Malirunore Corporation
c/o Michael A. Currea, Esq.
8181 NW 361h Street, Suite 27-C
Miami, Florida 33166
..
..
..
--
~
u:>
~
c:l
l'3-.
LC')
.-4
~
--
~
o
..
..
..
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
'The Eul'<<l
che
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
Per
J
J
-+"-"-"-"- .-..-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
J
I
I
I
i
I
,
I
I
,
I
.
IBIT
I
PROJEcT NO.
PROJECT PARCEL NO.
"All
60101
131
LEGAL DESCIIIP"FfON & SKETCH
(N<YfA SURVEY)
etuar, Non-Exclusive Drainage & Utility Easement
,
A PARCEl. OF LAND MORE PARTICUl..ARL Y DESCRIBED AS
0/ lhe Weslao lee! 0/ lhe NortI..'8IlI au.ter UfN III 0/ lhe NorIheuI au.ter (HE III
Cluerler UfN III 0/ SeclIon 8, T~ 50 SouIII, Range 26 East. Coller Ccully, FIaride.
LESS Ihe NoI1h 751eo1 thenlo/.
NW_oINWllolNE
16;, ~8.
. .
.' .,
"
!:::::~':"r~::;~;..~~~:~~:::;.;:~..--\~.._..
i
,
3D....
SKElD/NOT It) SCAlE
...~--
--...
.
.
Jt'f
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION
4108803 OR: 4313 PG: 1849
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COOIT!. 1L
12'19/2001 at 12:06PM DWIGHT I. BROCI. CLIRI
RIC lIB
35.50
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida,
Retn:
CIVIL
Petitioner,
Case No. 06-0876-CA
v.
Parcel(s): 131
CHARLES R. KELLER, et aI.,
fi4id mOpe
.pate:
~7
Respondents. _' .
/;\ Y;I<L (
/' :-v\:>-" .....
.' \,1../ ........ /'"
./ (/;/,j,\
STfP~~~~.Q@~~~F\ TA~N~
"" \.' .. ,
THIS CAUSE havin~ cor~~~ ~J\"llt rvotion made by Petitioner,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLO~A~'-...~~~J~cO~~!" Ri~rIS, LLC, by and through
I'. ..'; '~I ~ ,f '~/
their undersigned counsel, fO;\~\~f a Stipulated ~,?f:V~g and the Motion to Amend
the Amended Petition and it apP~PI;~~!_~~~er_l1~~~'given to all persons having or
claiming any equity, lien, title or othe; ;nlJJJ~inQ\~~e';eal property described as Parcel 131
in the Petition in Eminent Domain, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is
therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. This Court has jurisdiction of this cause, the parties hereto and the subject matter
hereof, and the pleadings in this cause are sufficient and the Petitioner is properly exercising its
delegated authority.
.
.
OR: 4313 PG: 1850
2. Parcel 131 is being acquired for a public purpose and is reasonably necessary to
serve the public purpose for which the property is being acquired.
3. The Declaration of Taking and Estimate of Value filed in this cause by the
Petitioner was made in good faith and based on a valid appraisal.
4. Upon deposit, as hereinafter specified, and without further notice of this Court,
the Petitioner shall be entitled to possession of the property described herein.
5. Within twenty (20) days oftj}is--Order,. Petitioner shall deposit into the Court
Registry the total sum of Two/~~!i,itY(!~\I;~i1?USand and No/IOO Dollan
/,' 1.,,,,,) ,>/ """I' ,,' '\
(5254,000.00). Upon the paym~t 01~~Lj1c;rein,.~peci~d irh.o the Registry of this Court,
/ ,Ii ,tt!!-,~',-":.t.,,_~, _ ---'c, \ \" \,
the right, title and interest defriWfi.: pt\If~~~' . ~.~.to~.. d made a part hereof by
. Ii I I Ii) 'r'/ ,'1 I .
reference shall vest in Petition~r. \\~:::::;J \~j__(~,~\.l,': ;
\ \ ,~",' j
6. This Stipulated ~~~ of Taking is wi~pr~j1Jd~!io any party on the issue of
\',;:\ " , / .'-.,
full compensation due the Respo~~~~~:l be r:~~~~the Official Records of Collier
. !. ..,.,.. .,\.. '.'
County, Florida. The provisions of thi~'S~\i~c;f Taking are not admissible in a trial
in this cause.
7. Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Amended Petition shall be granted and
Petitioner's proposed Second Amended Petition accepted and approved by this Court as filed.
Exhibit A, which is attached hereto, has been modified to reflect this proposed amendment.
2
.
.
OR: 4313 PG: 1851
DONE AND ORDERED In Naples, Collier County, Florida on this .a:: day of
l'lecember, 2007.
Confonned Copies:
Ellen T. Chadwell, Esquire
Bruce M. Harris, Esquire
Michael A. Currea, Esquire
Kevin Hendricks, Acquisition Mgr.lTransp.
Bookkeeping
~f!s
IRCUIT OURT JUDGE
JOINT MOTlO~~~~A~~p,~OF TAKING
,../ \.,-,,~,/'/ '~,< '\,
.i / ". '~>__'^"_"" C"~, ""
Petitioner, COLLIER l::opNl''Y:'~~'2.~~. ~the~~ wi~ Respondent, COLLIER
DA VIS, LLC., hereby respectf.iu.lIJ,(~~~r'~)~.)~;iL)o~~~~.' Sti~ulated Order of Taking as
- :\ \../'1 \ \ " J ~_., '\j I ' :
i ; i, ,. '/' "'~,^, ,..,.1/ ,;..___+'} 'C;",_,,~,:;I i I
to Parcel 131. . . ..... '" '';1,,' ,
\ jJ;,/ /
" ~~ (
" ~ 1J ,_ /
.., () " / .. "o/./' M
' '~_~ ~ ./ \ J1.
"4l0?iTi-(:~~}.bl5"_dayof d.. t- 12007.
Dated this _ day of
HA: RIS, ESQUIRE
Florid r No. 0003697
IS. HARRIS. BAUERLE & SHARMA
120 I East Robinson Street
Orlando, Florida 3280 I
(407) 843-0404- Telephone
(407) 843-0444- Facsimile
A TTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT.
COLLIER DAVIS. LLC
~L/~ l/~A_~~__
ELLEN T. CHADWELL, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 0983860
COUNTY A TTORNEY'S OFFICE
Hannon Turner Building
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(239) 774-8400 - Telephone
(239) 774-0225 - Facsimile
A TTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
........ -<'L .
_ S~- LJ--, ~ I.", ~
&. ..iflePi( 3
.'
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I The East 30
che
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.-/-...-..-..-..- .-..-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'"".....T.,..-.
I
I
.IBrT
.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT PARCEL NO.
"A"
60101
131
LEGAL DESCRIPTION a. SKETCH
(NOT A SURVEY)
p., t>IlAINI'\~ fW7> LlT)l..ll'1 6FiSt~DJT
A PARCEl. OF lAND MOllE PARTICUI..ARt. Y DESCRIBED AS
of the West 80 l&el 01.. NClthWllll 0uIrter (NW 14) 01 the Not1heesI 0uaIIer (HE 14)
0uaIIer (NW 14) 01 SecIIcn 8, Township 50 SouIh, Range 26 East. Coller Coo.my, Florida,
LESS the NCIth 7518el thenloI.
\~.~~~m__""'_"_.__m."._._.~'.;"" \\ \
..-..-.. .:'\:-'''-'''''1;:,-''-''~ ..-..-.. -~-"''r-''
\]('111 "\"'I'V-)\;-:t"Y'.. !..'
I I I J t ~/ \ i ; ;
/)\ \ ., /:r I,!
.... ",,,,,,::::,,,,,,,,F' ,:L_~~l L (c--~ I
',., ,
,
"
..-ik
*
'*.
*
C>
::0
,p.
(....>
.......
(....>
'"'"
G"l
.......
ex>
c...n
r-.>
!
i
i
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
'*
'*
*
SICETQI NOT1OSCAlE
IIlIICDIIIMII:IllI........~
_12011'"
BEREAN BAPTIST CHURCH: OF NAPLES, FLOPJDA, INC.
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
1. Kathy Beddingfield, Clerk of BEREAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES, FLORIDA,
mc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation (the "Corporation"), hereby certify that during a meeting
held by the board of directors, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED, that the Corporation enter into that certain Agre=ent for Ingress
and Egress between Collier Davis, LLC and the COJporation attached hereto and
incorporated herein (the "Agreement"), and that Michael Beddingfi.eld, Chairman
of the Corporation and Conway Bennett, Treasurer of the Corporation are
authorized and directed, for an -on behalf-of the CorporaJ:ion, to ""cocute the
Agreement and all other documents (including but not limited to the Right of First
Refusal Agreement attached as Exhibit "E" to the Agreement), and take any other
actions, necessary to effectuate the terms and provisions of the Agreement, with
!:UCh changes as such officers may determine to be appropriate, such
detemrination to be conclusively evidenced by execution hereof.
I further certify that the ahove vote has not been altered, amended, rescinded or repealed.
I further certify that BEREAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, INC., is a
duly organized and crist:ing Florida not-for-profit corporation; that Michael Beddingfi.cld and
Conway Bennett are the duly elected and qual:i:fied Chairman and Treasurer, respectively, of the
Corporation; and I am the Clerk of the Corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the lIDdersigned :~ tb:i~ Certificate on behalf of the
Company in he!' capacity lIS Clerk as of the 11 day of 2005.
I
4776812.113916.0001
EXHIBIT
I "Clf
AGREEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGP.ESS
THIS AGRE~' FOR INGP.ESS AND EGP.ESS (the "Agreement") is made and ent<:red
into this.E-- day of ,2005, by and b:tweco Collier Davis, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company whose address s 250 Catlloni. Avenue. Suite 606. Cora] Gables. Florida 33B4, its successors
and assigns, ("Developer') and Berean Baptist Church of Naples, Florida. lnc, a Florida not,for-prnfit
corporation whose sddress is ] 851 County Barn Road. Naples. Florida 34112, its successors and assigns,
("Church").
WHEREAS, the Develop"" owns cemrin real property situated in Collier County and more
particularly described on Exhibit "A" (the "Developer Property"). The Developer Property is adjacent to
real property owned by Church on County Bam Road in Collier County, Florida which is more
particularly described on Exhibit "B" (the "Church Property"); and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to build a shared road over and across the Chun:h Property and
the Developer Property that will provide one point of ingress over and across both the Church Property
and the Developer Property from County Bam Road, in addition to one point of egress over and across
the Developer Property onto County Bam Road;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
I. Pavment and Constrnction of Road: Additional Costs. Upon execution of this
Agr=t, Developer will pay to Church the sum of Fifty Thousand and NOlI GOths DollBrS
(SSO,OOO.OO) and Chun:h will permit Developer to construct a road over and across the Church Property
and the Developer Property which will allow for one point of ingress over and across both the Church
Property and the Developer Property from County Barn Road, in addition to one point of egress over and
across the Developer Property onto County Barn Road (the "Shared Road''), as depicted on Exhibit "C"
(the "Road Plans''). The parties acknowledge that the Road Plans merely represent a preliminary plan for
the location of the Shared Road and may be am:nded by Developer subsequent to the execution of this
Agreement filly such amendment that will have an effect on the location of the Shared Road on the
Church Property must b: approved by Church prior to the commencement of any construction. In
addition to the foregoing sum, Developer will pay for the costs of constructing thc Shared Road as well as
the costs of any and all improvements that =, or may be, required by Collier County, including but not
limited to, the road cut, deceleration lane, and a left turn lane on County Barn Road, all of which will be
constructed in accordance with the right of way plans attached hereto as Exhibit "0" which are subject to
the approval of Collier County.
2, E.sement GraDted Across Shared Road. Immediately following the completion of the
final plans for the Shared Road, or at some other time that is mll1ually agreed upon by the parties, Church
and Developer will convey to one another ellBCIDents for ingress and egress across the portions of the
Shared Roarllocated on their respective properties, said easements to be recorded in the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida.
3. 1ll2bt o{First Refusal. Upon execution of this Agreement, Developer shall have a right
of first refusal to buy the Church Property, Should Church receive an offer from a third party, which
offer nmst be a written and formal arm's-length offer, and one that Chun:h, in good faith, believes to be
1xma fide, church shall provide Developer notification of such offer, shall certify to Developer that it
intends to accept said offer, and thcrcaf\er, after notification of said offer, Developer shall have ten (10)
business days within which to notify Church that Developer chooses to acquire the Chun:h Property upon
the same = and conditions as proposed under such offer and shall promptly tender it> binding contract
476249.9.113916.0001
duly exccutJ::d to Church with 1he same provisions. In the ~vent tllllt Church n:ocivos such an offer,
notifios Developer and R-velopcr el~cts not to .cquire tho Chunoh Prop=rty, this right of first r.:fusal shall
have terminated with regarrl to th: Church Property and Church will be freo to sol1 such Ch=h Property
upon such tonns and conditions as may have been proposed by such off=. In the event that Church
should sell. portion, but not all of the properties covered by this right of first refusal, the first refusal will
remain as to the remaining properties. Developer and Church will, upon execution of this Agreement,
e:nter into the Right ofFiml: Refusal Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "En (the "Right of First Refusal
Agreement'.) which may be recorded by Doveloper in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. In
the event of any conflict between the terms of this P"",,,nmh 3 and the terms contained in the Right of
Fim Refus.1 Agreemen~ the trnns oftlu: Right of First Refusal Agreement shall control.
4. Re20Din~ .rDoveloper Property. Church aclmowledges tllllt it is.ware that Doveloper
tllllY make a petition to Collier County for the rezoning of the Doveloper Property. Church will support
any and all petitions for =ning made by Developer provided that such zoning will not allow for the
construction and/or operation of retail stores whose primary purpose is the s.le Dr rental of "adult-rated"
pornogr.phic matJ::rial, rel1li1 stores whose primary purpose is the sale of adult "novelty" items, and
establishments fcatming live nude and/or partially nude individuals. In addition, notwithstanding the
zoning classification of tho Developer Property, Develop:;!' will not permit the construction and/or
operation of any establishment tho primary purpose of which is the: sale of hard alcoholic bcvc:rages.
Church acknowledges that Developer intends to construct and/or operate a restaurant (or restaurants) on
the Doveloper Property and that said resta\lI1lllt(s) will serve alcoholic bcverages. 1be foregoing
restriction shall not bc interpreted to prohibit the construction and/or operation of a restaurnnt (or
restaurants) that will serve alcohol or which may have a separate bar located on 1he premises. To
effectuate Church's support of Developer's remning pctition, Chtm:h will provide to Developer any and
aU letters, forms, affidavits or other documentation expressing Church's support for the rezoning that
Developer may request from time to time. In addition to the foregoing, within six (6) months of the
exeeution of thi, Agro=nt, Developer will meet with Chtm:h and its representatives to discU!ls and
~vi<:w Developer's Site Plan for the development of the Developer Propmy. No later than !he third
business day following the date of the meeting, Church wt11 provide a written list of any all questions,
concerns, recommendations and other queries pertaining to the Site Plan (,aid questions, concerns,
recommendations and other queries to bc all-inclusive and final and must bc reasonable given !he natum
of this tnmsaction and within the direct control of Developer to achieve) directly to Developcr and will,
except as provided for below, refrain from addressing said concerns, recomm..-ndat:ions and other queries
to any othc:r person, entity, or governmental agency or board including, but not limited to, !he Board of
COImty Commissioners of Collier County. Once all questions, con=ns, recommendations and otb<:r
queries made by Chunoh have been addr1:ssed and resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both Chun:h and
Developer, Churt:h sbal1 provide to Developer its final written approval of the Site Plan and Developer
shall be entitled to move forward with the development of the Developer Property pursuant to the Site
Plan without further approval by Church. If, after . period of 1 SO days from the datJ:: of the meeting,
Developer and Church are not able, in gooc!,faith, to resolve, to the mutual satisfaction of Church and
Developer, Chun:h's questions, concerns, recommendations or other queries that were presc:nted in
writing to Developer in accordance with this Paragraph 4, and providt:d that said questions, concerns,
recommendation< and other queries were reasonable and within the direct control of Dovelopcr, Clnm:h
shall be entitled to address its concerns to the appropriate governmental agency. Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Agreement, the restrictions contained in this Paragraph 4 shall become nuJl and
void in the event Church conveys, grnnts or otherwise transfers the Church Property to Developer or a
third party.
476249.9.113916.0001
5. Vacation of ElI5ement Across Cbnrdt Property. Develop'" will "",ate that c=rtlln
Easement contained in Official Record& Book 563, Page 762 of the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida.
6. Dlselosure to Third Party Bnven. Notwithstanding the terms and provisions of
Paragraph 3. Church shall disclose to all tJrird party buyers the existence of this Agreement and sball give
such third party buyer a copy of the same. The disclosure required by this Paragraph 6 shall be in writing
and acknowledged by said third party buyer prior to, or simultaneously with, the execution of any contract
for the sale of the property. In addition, any contract for the sale of the property shall provide that the
tJrird party buyer shall be assigned, and shall assume, all of the rights, duties and obligations of this
Agreement. In the event Church fail, to comply with the provisious of this Paragraph 6, Church shall
indenmify and hold Developer harmless against any loss, claim, expense OT injury incurred by Developer
in connection with such failure.
7. Bindin.ofParties. The provisions ofthi, Agreement shall bind theporties h...-reto, their
respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. In the event of any litigation betwc","Il the parties
hereto, attorneys' fees and cost shall be awanled to the prevailing party. 1bis Agreement shall not, in the
event of any mnbiguity over the terms contained h...-rein, be construed mOTe strongly against any party
h...-reto regardless ofwheth", ooe was more responsible for its prep=tion.
8. MeTl!er of Acreement. 'The parties o;qm:ssly agree that the terms and provisions of this
Agreement represent the entirety of th=ir agreement; any prior agreement and/or lIDderstanding not
included herein shall be of no force and effect.
9. Severability of Aueement. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the
application thereuf to any person or circumstances shall, tD any extent, be decl~ invalid OT
unenforceable by a court of compet.cntjurisdictiOll, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of
such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as In which it is held invalid or
unenforceable, such term or provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its
application valid and enforceable, and the validity and enforceability of all oth", provisions of this
Agreement and all other applications of any such term or provision shall not be affected thereby, and ellCh
term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
lO. Connterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of COlIDterparts with the
same effect as if all such parties executed the same document. All such counterparts constitute one
agreement
II. Gov.miDl! Law. The laws of the State of Florida govern the validity of this Agreement,
the construction of its tenus and the interpretation of the rights and duties of the parties hereto.
12. ;ModiliClltion of Aueement. The parties may modify this Agreement. No
modification, altemtion or revision to this Agreement is valid unless in writing and signed by both Church
and Developer.
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE]
.416249.9.l13916.0CKl1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agr=ent, ou the terms and conditions stated herein,
has been duly executed by the parties hereto 3]; of the date and year first above written.
"CHURCH"
Berean Baptist Church of Naples, Florida, me.,
a Florida not-for,profit emporation.,
, ,
By: ~;.J-,P .s ILJ-j / ,j
V
Print Name: ,M:r~"l c: R"c.\"\"~{:e\~
Title; b., CJ, "'; ,~""'ll..f)
By:
Print Name:
.:--,--;
Title; };fe~
"DEVELOPER"
Collier Davis, u.c,
a Florida limited liability company,
By: Goldmeier (NJ) Ltd.
. Florida limited partnership,
its Managing Member
By: Goldmeier (NJ) Corp.,
a Florida corporation,
its General Partner
:4- .
oldmeler, VIce Presuient
[NOTARY INFORMATION TO FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE]
476249.9.113916.0001
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNIT OF Co\ L'e,
)
) &S
)
0'" C'.l ~
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ,I'~e'''' e(" ,
2005, by f'l,:\'o ~ \ \2.ebi>,":)J::,e'\i> . C\r.c. ,(' "''''' ofBerean Baptist Church of aples, Florida,
Inc., a Floridanot-for-profit corporation, 00 behalf of the company, who is ( ) personally known to me or
<11l. has produced f \ I:\L as i~tiiron. " rJ, ~,) J-
(SEAL) ~"" ''',<- EdwanlW. Drevitch ~ \- [j ~
~ ""'\\ ~ Commission #- 00340745 Notary Public '
'; \lei. Expires July 25, 2008 Print Name: g">hr~ \0 \) r eJ;\- ~ ~
~OF"f\.! Bolldldlmrfair!-lnal..-,....t. .'-..5-7019 My Commission Expires: 7/2S/0$f
STATE OF FLORIDA
CDUNTYOFCO\\Ii'l
)
) ss
)
The foregoin~ instrument WBS acknowledged before = this K day of S~ <>'" Let,
2005, by CO"",,''! ~,,, nCit ,'T'-~~Ofe(' ofBerean Baptist Church or Naples, Florida,
Inc., a Florida oOol,for-profit cmporation, on behalf of the company, who is ( ) personally known to me or
W has produced ---f1 D i_as identification. I 1
(SEAL) 0""" '''\ Edward W. Orevitch <;i ~ k j ))~
~ "i\\ . Commission #- 00340745 Notary Public
'; \la Expires July 25, 2008 . _ _ .-- \ \ , '." '.l. \
~OFp..dP~110 1'..lPaInIlC&.lnc.~85-7019 Print Name. tdu)c..t""o. uJ.ure\.J I \c:'-\
, My Commission Expi=: 7/?'~1o<t
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) .5
COUNTY OF )
'H ~
The roregoing instrument WllS acknowledged before me this 11- day of ~
2005, by Barry S. Goldmeicr, Vice President or Goldmeier (N!) C"'l'., a Florida ration, the
Generll! Partner of Goldmeicr (N1) Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, the Managing Member of Collier
Davis, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the company, who is ( ) personally known
to !DO or (Y) has produced '-- L as identillcation.
(SEAL)
,,'~~~Y4;} Joyce L Mincavage
;:;~'" 'Commission #00244738
~;:" ';J~~hxpires: Aug 25, 2007
~"~~;oH-i.~~" Bondod Thru
Ijllll\' AtlanticBondingCo..J.r;;.
o Public
, . ame: JO."\e t- r JJ);NffHJA~E-
My Commission 'bpires: 8 / :;"~O'7 ;J
476249.9.113916.0:xn
EXHIBIT A DEVELOPER TRACT LEGAL
LEGAL DESCRJPTlON
TIIE NW 114 OF TIIE NE 1/4 OF TIlE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, LESS THE WEST 50 FEET OF THE EAST 112 OF THE NW 114, AND LESS THE NORTH 75
FEET OF TIIE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4.
AND
TIIEWEST 1/2 OFTHENE 114 OF THE NE 114 OFTHENW 114 OF SECTlON 8. TOWNSHIP 50
SOurn, RANGE 26 EAST. LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTIJ 75 FEET
TIIEREOF
AND
TIIE NW 1/4 OF TIlE SE 1/4 OF TIlE NE 1/4 OF TIlE NW 114 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTIJ 75 FEET
THEREOF.
AND
TIIE EAST 1/2 OF TIIE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTIJ 75 FEET -THEREOF
AND TIlENE 1/4 OF TIlE SE 1/4 OF TIlENE 1/4 OF TIlENW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
ALL TIlE ABOVE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COIllER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CONTAlNlNG 22.83 ACRES OF LAND MORE OF LESS.
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
EXIDEIT "B"-
FOR AGREEMENT FOR INGRESS & EGRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
BEREAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, me.
THE NORTH 277.49 FEET OF THE EAST 68.00 FEET OF THE
WEST Y2 OF THE NORTH 'is OF THE SOUTH V2 OF THE
NORTHEAST'l4 OF THE NORTHWEST 'l4 OF SECTION 8,
.. . TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
L'(..
3717927 OR: 3912 PG: 3466
DCOIDID 1n ornCIAL Dcom of COLLIn coum, 'L
10/17/2085 at 10:1411 DlIGBf I. BIOCI, CLlII
DC nJ 52.50
This Instrument Prepared By
leta:
lorrllL i AlDIIII
850 PAIl noli 01 31D .LOOI
IArLI8 fL 34103
Without Opinion of Title By:
Daniel K. WeidenbNcb, Esquire
Rnetzel & Andress. a Legal Professional Association
850 Park Shore Drive
Trianon Centre. Third Floor
Naples, Florida 34103
(239) 649,6200
(Space above this line is for recording data)
GRANT OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
This Gmnt of Right of lirst ~~~ith Respect to the Purchase of Real Property
(the"Agreement") is made on this of , 2005. by and between Collier Davis, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, whose ad ~_is 2~Q Catalonia Avenue Suite 606. Coral Gables.
Florida 33134, its successors and ass",,~-r-~~~&p;.::).an,.d Berean Baptist Church of Naples,
Flonda, Inc., a F10nda not-for-prnfjy~~;-~~,Is, 1851 CounlY Barn Road. Nanles.
Florida 34112, its successors and~~..ltne "Church"). "<l." \,
WHEREAS, Church is.llie 9'rlfI2nliiit~1 of~al Pr.?perty in Collier County, Florida
described on Exhibit "A" atta~ed ~~;m~\!,a._rt...~~~! ~~ "P~perty") which is subject to this
agreement; , 'I i,,(/ ,~.. >'\"'.1' \!;;;:-~, ',/,0\. I"
j I, ' "k)' I!IJ) ~/" ,
! j " ! (i Jr-::-" .. "'/ :
WHEREAS, Church ., ~ e!pt that c In 1~t for Ingress and Egress on
or about even date hereof (the\';JA~d ~ ~ent .. qfll'$Fr's construction of a shared
road across the Property; " >,', '(" .. ,. '
\ ", "" \. <~!"<, " !, .'''''',/
".,,1.,.j' 'i'~ / I/""~/
\, i \ \'" i h.... f
WHEREAS, Paragraph 3~,~ e,'lngress and Egress A~oIilJ )"rovides that Developer shall have a
right of first refusal to purchase the"~~d this doc~;~(~pCuted between Church and Developer
at:i'" Effecltve Date of the Ingress an~~~~,,::~ffcaIlY eVIdence saId nght of first refusal;
an '-""___ 'a_"
WHEREAS, the Property may be offered for sale, and Church recognizes the rights of Developer as
set forth in the Ingress and Egress Agreement and this Agreement should Church receive a written offer
from a third party to purchase the Property;
NOW TIIEREFORE, in consideration of the payment ofTen Dollars ($10.00) and other good and
valuable considerations by Developer to Church (including Developer's performance under and execution
oflbe Ingress and Egress Agreement), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Church
hereby grants to Developer a right of first refusal to the Property as follows;
1. If Church desires to sell the Property, or any portion thereof, and Church (i) receives
from some third party a good faith written and formal arms-length offer for the purchase of all or part of
the Property and one which Church in good faith believes to be bona fide which Church intends to accept,
or (ii) intends to make the first counteroffer to an initial offer by a third party buyer. then Church shall
provide to Developer written notice of the same along with a copy of such offer or counteroffer (the "First
Offer Contract").
OR: 3912 PG: 3467
2. Developer shall have ten (10) business days after receiving the First Offer Contract
within which to elect to purchase the Property, or any portion of the Property, on the same terms and
conditions as provided in the First Offer Contract. Such election shall be made by written notice to
Church, pursuant to Paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Agreement and at the address(es) provided therein or at
such other address(es) as may be provided to Developer in writing by Church or Church's respective
heirs, successors and/or assigns, accompanied by a signed offer by Developer on a binding contract
consistent WIth the tenns of the Ingress and Egres< Agreement and including the same material terms and
conditions proposed by the First Offer Contract.
3. If, after Developer rejects the First Offer Contract and Church signs the First Offer
Contract, additional counteroffers are made between Church and the third party buyer that alter any terms
of the First Offer Contract and Church believes the counteroffer is bona fide which Church intends to
accept, then Church shall provide to Developer notice of the same along with a copy thereof and ten (10)
business days within which to elect to purchase all or any portion of the Property on the identical terms as
provided in said counteroffer (the "Counteroffer Contract"). Such election shall be made as provided in
the last sentence of Paragraph 2, except that the Counteroffer Contract shall be substituted for the First
Offer Contract.
4. If Developer fails to give the,.J19liee;'teHde{ the deposit and make the required contractual
offer as provided in Paragraph 2 of thi~'^~~ ~~t,be. relieved of all liability to Developer
hereWlder and may sell the Pro~~)Iiird party OlleFO(ttpc~th. is Agreement, otherwise this right
of first refusal shall remain in full . :~~ effect. "', )" ...
.' ',/ "', \,
5. This Agreem.,lt '0/.'; iIi:Q;.;~~iredby eloper\~t ~veloper's option. in the Public
Records of Collier County, iF10rida.... ,~YP~~ii t.._Q):, vel~, C\h. urch agrees to execute such
additional documents as may ~e r.i:. o"-~f"fl ~ ,. :llIa 0 )f. r; tet\t of this right of first refusal.
. , ! . l,L' 1,../ \ , , ,
6. Any notice ~. . ~~~~here~ sti~ in writing and given by hand
delivery, overnight courier or t.es1riojlle transmission to: I,,,. :...:::,' i
\, ..'. 'i.( ! ,";
\f"" ,\ ,j~:, ; /,...,... I
If to Church:.:-?;\ Berean &jt'litC~'9'fNaples, Florida, Inc.
< I r':'.,. 1850 County ~f3~
, ')~:,I:/~~~~~'i;4-2819
...~,tele'co~(239)
If to Developer:
Barry S. Goldmeier
250 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 606
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 461,2330
Telecopier: (305) 984-3595
With a Copy to:
Robert Pritt, Esq.
Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A.
Trianon Center, Third Floor
850 Park Shore Drive
Naples, Florida 34103
Telephone: (239) 649-6200
Telecopier: (239) 261-3659
2
OR: 3912 PG: 3468
With a Copy to:
Collier Davis, LLC
clo Creative Capital Corp
61 South Paramus Rd.
Paramus, N.J. 07652
Telephone: (201) 845,7020ext.17
Telecopier: (201) 845-8988
EIther party may, by giving notice to the other, change the address to which notices shall be sent.
A notice shall be deemed given when same is delivered by courier, or if notice is given by facsimile
transmission, the date upon which the transmission was actually made if received prior to 5:00 p.m.
(United States Eastern Standard or Daylight Time, as then applicable). Notice to or by the cmDlsel for
either party shall be deemed as notice to each party whose counsel recei ves such notice, however Church
shall give notice of the First Offer Contract to both Developer and its counsel. Any facsimile
transmission not received by said time shall be deemed to be delivered on the following business day.
Any notice given or required to be given hereunder shall not be effective if made on a weekend
day or on any nationally recognized holiday where either the Church's or Developer's business is closed.
Any such weekend days (commencing f,?lD-:5'OO'?"r":--f~day until 8:30 a.m. Monday United States
Eastern. Standard or Daylight TIme, .aIf\lhrt~!l>l'Ii:c(ljltll/~,hohdays shall be excluded from the
calculallon of any lime penods here.~.: /" "<'\/? '. _'.
.' . -" j.
7. If Church fails t~ c~~,,!l.IL1~ First OtTer Co~~ct'~ any other otTer entered into by
Church after Developer has de"in~1f to~ tbe~. "P, il'I?,Vlvided tl)is ,\gr" cement has not tenninated (as
set forth in Paragraph 9 belo"f) ~bJ'JI"I!~~"am: ~'l."....Qffcg:.1P o&veloper in accordance with the
tenns hereof. i ,fl (~\i{/ f"\ \ 1"..,1,1,"\ \" ~,il' I,
' it, ' 1 1 ~,J It) ~J ';\'/;! \
8. This Agree~~ .J..c~~_"'~um~ c+ohtt~s, each of which, when so
executed and delivered, shall \lle"~ oiiii;;'~ut each ~t sh!llr ~ogether constitute one and the
same instrument. Facsimile "\~~~res may be relied '!:~, "1d ~):onstitute one and the same as
ongmal ~Ignatures. '., /..J~. \" t \", i/, . '.". ,:
'\,"l ""., ~/, \..,. //
9. This Agreement sh'ail.~~ on t~~"giil!"P,~~~tion hereof by both parties and shall
tenninate only upon the Developer's Whtt.~t!!l'~~~:llfgress and Egress Agreement.
10. The provisions of this Agreement shaH bind the parties hereto, their respective heirs,
representatives, successors and assigns. In the event of any litigation between the parties hereto,
attorneys' fees and cost shall be awarded to the prevailing party. This Agreement shall not in the event of
any ambiguity over the terms contained herein, be construed more strongly against any party hereto
regardless of whether one was more responsible for its preparation.
1 L If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances shall, to any extent, be declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such tenn or provision to persons or
circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable. such tenn or provision shall
be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its application valid and enforceable, and the
validity and enforceability of all other provisions of this Agreement and all other applications of any such
term or provision shall not be affected thereby, and each tenn and provision of this Agreement shall be
valid and be enforced to the fullest extent pennitted by law.
3
OR: 3912 PG: 3469
12. Developer's right offirst refusal as provided herein shan continue and be binding against
any pW'Chaser or transferee of all or part of the Property that is a Related Party of ChW'Ch. "Related
Party" shan include, without limitation: any corporations. companies, trusts, partnerships or other entities
in which either Church (or any relative of Church) owns directly, or indirectly, any interest therein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement, on the terms and conditions stated herein, has been
duly executed by the parties hereto as of the date and year first above written.
WITNESSES:
"CHURCH"
Berean Baptist Church of Naples, Florida, Inc.,
a Florida not-for-profit corporation,
~ -,j,r ~ By: ~k/ ..s ~
(Print Name: 11n" Orl:'J '+'h )
/' .,e(int Name: .111; d." ~I s 8.. .,(~, .../0/
<\..n ~~...,,/'\' \tR ('O/!'Ab..nr .
{Pri~~~f~~."1;};..t~~>>-- ....'f~:v~T\Qf\ ('
r-' 'n'."~
\
~(\"")~;"=F--~\
(c..Ru ("'1<<I( (i "\ r . .,V j
~ it l \ ~ f ,1; i t aifjie:
\ (""J \ \..,.,,\....:.:~J \,...,:~~/' C'}.'"~ !.~_ (,~ ! r-,
-.. -- 'Eitle: "
v.
~1~' / //~~i/
't....;/ \-' /
..,:~~ER"
HZ l, .>/
--€6llier Davis, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company,
.
,
~/lJ-<-
{Print Name:
I
(Print Na
..
~oL
)
\ ;;;-,
\<_1-"'"
'. r) .....
''.1'''--
. f' '-,...
-' LIL__E
(Print Name: l"R ,oJ!FT' ~""'1E"'4
)
~;~;~ M.~ )
By: Goldmeier (NJ) Ltd.
a Florida limited partnership,
its Managing Member
By: Goldmeier (NJ) Corp.,
a Florida corporation,
its General Partner
~
Goldmeier, Vice President
4
OR: 3912 PG: 3470
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OIk ) I;. ("
)
) ss
)
The foregoing inslnunent was acknowledged before me this.L day of ~+eM~(" ,
2005, by fl\1C\....\~e~\~'.\.i. , C"o.'r1Y)cu" of Berean Baptist Church ofrlaples, Florida,
Inc.. a Florida not-for-profit ration on If of the company, who is ( ) personally known to me or
tY)hasproduced l aSiden~~tification. r \.~.~
~..... Edward W. Dl'fYNIfI . IJJ
(SEAL):, '; Cornmi8sIon' 00340745
~ V.4 Elcpires July 25, 2008 Notary Public . I
~OF,.:Jr_T"''''_,,, _TO" Print Name: ~..a..r~\J. t:I~e.J\-\<"'"
My Commission Expires: 7 Rsr~
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OFt.:, I \, e.(
)
)
)
ss
(SEAL)
STATE OF FLORIDA
)
) ss
)
No Pu~lic',_ '\ \
Prinl1J1:r"n{e:,~y;<>.rJ.W t>r~vll<..~
My ConW<~~" ExpIres' 7 /~5/o'l,
"\ "-
, \\Z~.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lif'!! day of 4~ ,
2005, by Barry S. Goldmeier, Vice President of Goldmeier (NJ) Corp" a Florida c rporation, the
General Partner of Goldmeier (NJ) Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, the Managing Member of Collier
Davis, LLC, a Florida limited lia'li co an on behalf of the company, who is ( ) personally known
to me or 00 has produced L. Dc: s identification.
(SEAL)
,'ilt, JIM'
."~~"~' oyce. mcavage
;:'4'.""",,"::~ Com.mission .00244738
"-\" 'll"'~ ExpIres: Aug 25, 2007
~,,::a;~"" Bonded"Thna
"UI\ Atlantit;: Bondina Co.~ loc.
iota blic . ~
, Print Name: ~o'lte /!)i/\JI::flV'je-
My Commission-Expires: 8/.J- 5 J 01
5
ttt OR: 3912 PG: 3471 ttt
EXHIBIT "A"-
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL AGREEMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
BEREAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, INC.
THE NORTH 277.49 FEET OF THE EAST 68.00 FEET OF THE
WEST Y2 OF THE NORTH Y2 OF THE SOUTH Y2 OF THE
NORTHEAST Y4 OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUT~~~~2~~T.
, .0/,<).
\
i/ /,/ li~,=,~:~:-~\"_-~_"_-_'''-''.~_,r>-\. \'" \\
i ,i(.I /;::::'C:J / >~.:::'\ ~"I ;:;'C"'I")~,'( 77\ \
i I { (I \ 'i i I.. : \ '\/l i !
j i I \ l } .' i ir- \\ ( i '
\,-~\\..\/)\\j/\I.1 \ii;~!
\' ,\ \,-,::.,/ -'",_':~,,_/ ~:.n' ,--f~ r.~~__,..::l" I
'j \ - \~r'" / ;'
, -', 'f i!
\c"~' \. ~k~ / /
",/1,) '. ,~t~ " i I
'. " ,'- ; / '
" #""!'" '\ 1..,.. ,i \. /
\, " / -,- -'/
'" '. ""'J>-"~---'--~--~-~"-<'/<?;''<~>'' -'
",< U I (' \ \Z:~>>
Anthony Pires
't1)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
RamseyFrank [FrankRamsey@colliergov.net]
Wednesday, May 06. 2009 11 :28 AM
Anthony Pires
RE: Davis Reserve MPUD - AR-6829
Good morning Anthony-
I have been reviewing the data you have requested. As of the end of the second quarter (March
2009) there were a total of approximately 4,400 affordable units approved by the BCC in
developments that have not been completed. Of those 4,400 approved units, 531 have been built.
Please note that simply because the Board approved units as affordable does not mean they were
granted affordable housing density bonus. I would need to review the ordinances for the
developments to determine which received additional density.
Is this information of assistance?
Frank "Buddy" Ramsey
Housing Manager
Phone: 252-2336
Fax: 252-6542
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Pires [mailto:APires@wpl-legal.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:45 PM
To: RamseyFrank
Subject: RE: Davis Reserve MPUD - AR-6829
Having it by Wednesday would be nice, in case the Davis Reserve MPUD is heard Thursday by the
CCPC. Thanks for all your efforts to date.
Anthony P. Pires, Jr.
Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, PA
3200 North Tamiami Trail
Suite 200
Naples, Florida 34103
239-649-6555 Phone
239-649-7342 Fax
apires@wpl-Iegal.com
Firm Website: www.wpl-Iegal.com
This transmittal and/or attachments may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may
otherwise be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of
this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmittal and/or attachments in error,
please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone (call us at
239-649-6555) and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.
-----Original Message-----
From: RamseyFrank [mailto:FrankRamsey@colliergov.net]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Anthony Pires
Subject: RE: Davis Reserve MPUD - AR-6829
Good afternoon Anthony
This request is currently being worked on. It may take me another day or so to compile the data for
you. Do you have a deadline you are working under?
Thank you
Frank "Buddy" Ramsey
Housing Manager
Phone: 252-2336
Fax: 252-6542
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Pires [mailto:APires@wpl-legal.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 6:49 PM
To: RamseyFrank
Subject: RE: Davis Reserve MPUD - AR-6829
Frank, could you advise of the status?
Thanks
Anthony P. Pires, Jr.
Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A.
3200 North Tamiami Trail
Suite 200
Naples, Florida 34103
239-649-6555 Phone
239-649-7342 Fax
apires@wpl-Iegal.com
Firm Website: www.wpl-Iegal.com
This transmittal and/or attachments may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may
otherwise be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of
this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmittal and/or attachments in error,
please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone (call us at
239-649-6555) and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.
-----Original Message-----
From: RamseyFrank [mailto:FrankRamsey@colliergov.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1 :56 PM
z
To: Anthony Pires
Subject: Re: Davis Reserve MPUD - AR-6829
Sounds good. I will see what data I can get for you.
Frank Ramsey
Housing Manager
Sent from my BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Pires <APires@wpl-legal.com>
To: RamseyFrank
Sent: Wed Apr 2913:54:252009
Subject: RE: Davis Reserve MPUD - AR-6829
How about the last 3 years
Anthony P. Pires, Jr.
Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, PA
3200 North Tamiami Trail
Suite 200
Naples, Florida 34103
239-649-6555 Phone
239-649-7342 Fax
apires@wpl-Iegal.com
Firm Website: www.wpl-Iegal.com
This transmittal and/or attachments may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may
otherwise be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of
this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmittal and/or attachments in error,
please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone (call us at
239-649-6555) and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.
-----Original Message-----
From: RamseyFrank [mailto:FrankRamsey@colliergov.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1 :49 PM
To: Anthony Pires
Subject: Re: Davis Reserve MPUD - AR-6829
Good afternoon
I am out of the office for the remainder of the day. To answer your question, gathering this
information may take some time. Is there a specific period of time you would like me to limit my
review? I can provide you a list of affordable units approved and the number built.
However that would not distinguish development with AHDB.
Frank Ramsey
Housing Manager
Sent from my BlackBerry
3
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Pires <APires@wpl-legal.com>
To: RamseyFrank
Sent: Wed Apr 29 13:45:48 2009
Subject: RE: Davis Reserve MPUD - AR-6829
Frank, any idea as to a time frame? "the total number of affordable units approved by the Board of
County Commissioners receiving AHDB and the total number that have yet to be constructed?"
Thanks
Anthony P. Pires, Jr.
Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A.
3200 North Tamiami Trail
Suite 200
Naples, Florida 34103
239-649-6555 Phone
239-649-7342 Fax
apires@wpl-Iegal.com
Firm Website: www.wpl-Iegal.com
This transmittal and/or attachments may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may
otherwise be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of
this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmittal and/or attachments in error,
please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone (call us at
239-649-6555) and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.
From: RamseyFrank [mailto:FrankRamsey@colliergov.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:25 PM
To: Anthony Pires
Cc: KrumbineMarcy; SchmittJoseph
Subject: Davis Reserve MPUD - AR-6829
4
Good afternoon Anthony-
I have been asked to assist in providing you the information you requested in reference to the Davis
Reserve AHDB. I would just like to clarify what information you are seeking. Are you asking for the
proposed affordable housing to be located in Davis Reserve? Or rather, the total number of
affordable units approved by the Board of County Commissioners receiving AHDB that have yet to be
constructed?
Thank you-
Frank "Buddy" Ramsey
Housing Manager
Collier County Housing & Human Services
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
Phone (239)252-4663
Fax (239) 252-6542
frankramsey@colliergov.net
5
..."
1
u
u) ~ ~
2
~
-
.-
~
:>
t:
~
-
~
~
<<)
q\)
-
-.Q
::t:
~
-
r--.....
~ ~::r
uJ 0 ~~
\I) ~ ,\I _
-::: ~~
~ <I'S
W
')<'. ~
;:: ~~~
~ "S I ~
~~
.
~
rr-
-
.
~
'"
~
uJ ~~
o s-
~ ~ -:J:
~\ ~
I
~ ~ ..-
-
W d
-
')<'. ~
--
r ~~
~~
o :it
~I~
~
J j
~
c:(
~
~
-
~
~
~
]'
s
-
~
>
t:
~
-
~
~
.-
<<) ~
-
-:r:
uJ
~
I ~ ::L-
~ <C "3
~ <:;c:
-- ~
r ~~~
~~
.
"
fI
r-
...
-
0:>
d
.
~
~
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
This Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as:
Urban, Urban Mixed Use District; and, on a very limited basis, Agricultural/Rural. It is not applicable
to the Urban areas encompassed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan; these two Elements have their own density provisions. The Density Rating System is
applicable to that portion of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to the extent that the residential
density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded, except for the density bonus provisions for
Affordable Housing and Transfer of Development Rights, and except as provided for in the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The final determination of permitted density via
implementation of this Density Rating System is made by the Board of County Commissioners
through an advertised public hearing process (rezone or Stewardship Receiving Area designation).
1. The Densitv Ratina System is applied in the followina manner:
a. Within the applicable Urban Designated Areas, a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per
gross acre may be allowed, though not an entitlement. This base level of density may be adjusted
depending upon the location and characteristics of the project. For purposes of calculating the
eligible number of dwelling units for a project (gross acreage multiplied by eligible number of
dwelling units per acre), the total number of dwelling units may be rounded up by one unit if the
dwelling unit total yields a fraction of a unit .5 or greater. Acreage to be used for calculating
density is exclusive of: the commercial and industrial portions of a project, except where
authorized in a Subdistrict, such as the Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict; and, mixed
residential and commercial uses as provided for in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts in the
Collier County Land Development Code; and, portions of a project for land uses having an
established equivalent residential density in the Collier County Land Development Code.
b. Within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, the Density Rating System is applicable for the
Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus only, as specifically provided for in that Subdistrict.
c. Within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA), the Density Rating System is
applicable for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus only, as specifically provided for in
the RLSA for Stewardship Receiving Areas.
d. This Density Rating System only applies to residential dwelling units. This Density Rating System
is not applicable to accessory dwellings or accessory structures that are not intended and/or not
designed for permanent occupancy, and is not applicable to accessory dwellings or accessory
structures intended for rental or other commercial use; such accessory dwellings and structures
include guest houses, servants quarters, mother-in-Iaw's quarters, cabanas, guest suites, and the
like.
e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that
are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System,
except as provided in:
1) Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element.
2) The Urban Mixed Use District for the "vested" Port of the Islands development.
3) The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict.
4) The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict.
5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict.
6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial/nfill Subdistrict.
7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict.
HI-lITED FOR PRESENTATION
8
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses are
discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision
and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development
Code.
a. Conyers ion of Commercial Zonin~ Bonus:
If a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that has been found to be "Consistent By
Policy" through the Collier County Zoning Re-evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23), then a
bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre may be added for every one (1) acre of commercial
zoning that is converted to residential zoning. These bonus dwelling units may be distributed over
the entire project. The project must be compatible with surrounding land uses.
b. Proximity to Mixed Use ActiYity Center or Interchanoe Activity Center:
If the project is within one mile of a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center and
located within a residential density band, 3 residential units per gross acre may be added. The
density band around a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center shall be measured
by the radial distance from the center of the intersection around which the Mixed Use Activity
Center or Interchange Activity Center is situated. If 50% or more of a project is within the density
band, the additional density applies to the gross acreage of the entire project. Density bands are
designated on the Future Land Use Map and shall not apply within the Estates Designation or for
properties within the Traffic Congestion Area.
c. Affordable-Workforce Housino Bonus:
As used in this density bonus provision, the term "affordable" shall be as defined in Chapter
420.9071, F.S. To encourage the provision of affordable-workforce housing within certain Districts
and Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to 8 residential units per gross
acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the requirements of the Affordable-
workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code,
Ordinance #04-41, as amended, adopted June 22,2004 and effective October 18, 2004), and if
the affordable-workforce housing units are targeted for families earning no greater than 150% of
the median income for Collier County. In the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, projects utilizing
the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus must provide appropriate mitigation consistent
with Objective 12.1 and subsequent policies, as applicable, of the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element. Also, for those specific properties identified within the Urban Residential
Fringe Subdistrict, this density bonus is allowed but only to a maximum of 6 residential units per
gross acre. Additionally, the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus may be utilized within
the Agricultural/Rural designation, as provided for in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay,
subject to the aforementioned Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code.
d. Residential In-fill
To encourage residential in-fill in urban areas of existing development outside of the_Coastal High
Hazard Area, a maximum of 3 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the
following criteria are met:
(a) The project is 20 acres or less in size;
(b) At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer;
(c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses;
(d) The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property;
(e) There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels;
(f) The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill residential density
bonus and was created prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management
Plan on January 10, 1989;
HI-lITED FOR PRESENTATION
9
(g) Of the maximum 3 additional units, one (1) dwelling unit per acre shall be transferred
from Sending Lands;
(h) Projects qualifying under this provision may increase the density administratively by a
maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring that additional density from
Sending Lands.
e. Roadway Access
If the project has direct access to 2 or more arterial or collector roads as identified in the Traffic
Circulation Element, 1 residential dwelling unit per gross acre may be added. Density credits
based on future roadways will be awarded if the developer commits to construct a portion of the
roadway (as determined by the County Transportation Department) or the road is scheduled for
completion during the first five years of the Capital Improvements Plan. The Roadway Access
bonus is not applicable to properties located within the Traffic Congestion Area.
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are
permitted as follows:
(a) From Urban designated areas into that portion of the Urban designated area subject to
this Density Rating System, in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code, adopted
by Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, on June 22,2004 and effective October 18, 2004.
For projects utilizing this TDR process, density may be increased above and beyond the
density otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System.
(b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development.
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit per
gross acre.
In no case shall density be transferred into the Coastal High Hazard Area from outside the Coastal
High Hazard Area.
g. Transportation Concurrencv Management Area ITCMAI Bonus
Residential redevelopment or infill development that meets the criteria established in Policies 6.1
through 6.5 of this Element, and which occurs within a designated Transportation Concurrency
Management Area (TCMA) may add 3 residential units per gross acre. This density bonus shall
not be available if the proposed development is located within the Coastal High Hazard Area.
Additionally, in no instance shall the total project density exceed 16 units per gross acre.
3. Density Reduction
Consistency with the following characteristic would subtract density:
a. Traffic Congestion Area
If the project lies within the Traffic Congestion Area, an area identified as SUbject to long range
traffic congestion, one dwelling unit per gross acre would be subtracted from the eligible
base density of four dwelling units per acre. The Traffic Congestion Boundary is shown on the
Future Land Use Map and consists of the western coastal Urban Designated Area seaward of a
boundary marked by Airport-Pulling Road (including an extension north to the Lee County
boundary.) Davis Boulevard, County Barn Road, and Rattlesnake Hammock Road consistent with
the Mixed Use Activity Center's residential density band located at the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and County Road 951 (including an extension to the
east). Properties adjacent to the Traffic Congestion Area shall be considered part of the Traffic
Congestion Area if their only access is to a read forming the boundary of the Area; however, if that
property also has an access point to a road not forming the boundary of the Traffic the Traffic
HI-lITED FOR PRESENTATION
10
Congestion Area it will not be subject to the density reduction. Furthermore, the density reduction
shall not apply to developments located within the South U.S. 41 TCEA (as identified within
Transportation Element, Map TR-4, and Transportation Element Policies 5.5 and 5.6, and FLUE
Policy 2.4) that obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation, pursuant to
the certification process described in Transportation Element Policy 5.6, and that include
affordable housing (as per Section 2.7.7 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as
amended) as part of the plan of development. This reduction shall likewise not be applied to
developments within the Northwest and East-Central TCMAs that meet the requirements of FLUE
Policies 6.1 through 6.5, and Transportation Element Policies 5.7 and 5.8, and that include
Affordable Housing (as per Section 2.7.7. of the Collier County Land Development Code, as
amended) as part of the plan of development.
4. Density Conditions:
The following density condition applies to all properties subject to the Density Rating System.
a. Maximum Density
The maximum allowed density shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per gross acre within the Urban
designated area, except when utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision
contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code adopted by Ordinance #04-41, as
amended on June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004.
HI-L1TED FOR PRESENTATION
11
'It>
. .
(rOUNTRtSIDEI
GOLf AND CoVI'ITRY CW6
1 am the President of the Master Board of Directors for the Countryside Golf, Country
Club located on Davis Boulevard, and I am speaking on behalf of said Board.
While 1 appreciate the fact that your have an obligation to change PDZ-2004-AR-6829,
Collier Davis since it is not in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, 1 do
question the proposal set forth by Mr. Robert Andrea of Coastal Engineering Consultants,
Inc. His proposal requests a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the
Davis Reserve MPUD.
The growth area with the improved infra structure on Santa Barbara has created an
enviromnent which makes East Naples more accessible thereby more appealing to
prospective buyers. The existing PUD identifies this area as residential and although the
Estate concept may not be feasible or in compliance with the Growth Management Plan,
the emphasis should be more on the residential and not the commercial, which veers from
the intended purpose and plan for this area. Many commercial establishments have been
approved for development on the comers of Santa Barbara and Davis and additional
commercial use will lessen its residential environment, reduce our property values, and
make this a less desirable place to select when the market turns around and prospective
baby boomers are looking for a place to settle in Naples. Countryside has established a
very proactive Membership Committee in anticipation of their arrival, making both our
Community and the surrounding area appealing and inviting. Being surrounded by
commercial and rented property is undesirable. I believe it is the responsibility of
government to spread the growth of these establishments of both commercial and rented
properties throughout Collier County and not have them concentrated in the East Naples
residential area. The project Mr. Robert Andrea is recommending will only derail our
efforts to meet the younger generations needs.
We would appreciate your considering a proposal that would rezone and provide
ownership opportunities for our professionals and semi professions such as our
schoolteachers, firefighters and police officers. Ownership brings with it responsibility
and investment lends itself to care for the property and the community in which you live.
There is a disconnect when the property is owned by someone who does not live in the
area and whose only real interest is profit.
However, if you do proceed with a combination of commercial buildings and housing,
hopefully ownership units, it is our concern that the height limitation of 65 feet for the
commercial buildings is clearly larger than the buildings in the area. The commercial
aspect of this project creates night-lights, and could have an impact on our area, viewing
it more as a commercial area than a residential area. Our members were told and lead to
Mailing Addresso600 Countryside DriveoNaplesoFlorida 341040(239) 353-1 780 o Fax (239) 353-3717
:~
"
believe when they purchased property in Countryside, through the documents and PUDS,
that this area would remain primarily residential, a quiet, secure comfortable place to
retire. We hope to present that image to our prospective buyers but we need our
government to work with us and protect East Naples and preserve it as residential.
PUDS, that are now being rezoned have supported that position. Our proximity to
Downtown Naples, the beach and arts make this area ideal for residential growth.
The third issue is more serious and dangerous for Countryside members who are
attempting to exit onto Davis heading west. I spoke to Mr. Greene of your
Transportation Department, who believes that individuals most likely will exit from this
new community onto County Barn going north. This exit will give them the security and
the advantage of turning right or left onto Davis Boulevard with a stop light. Before the
project is even started County Barn is to be extended to a four lane road. There is a
concern that those individuals exiting right on Davis and then choosing to go left will
make a left U turn at Countryside. There already exits a traffic congestion problem when
you have members from Falling Waters exiting out of their development and turning Icft,
parents dropping off their children from school and making a U turn in front of our
development and our members turning right onto Davis or turning left into our
Community when heading east. I am aware of the Intelligent Traffic Management
System, as mentioned in the proposal, at the two intersections located along the Davis
Boulevard corridor but that will only control the flow of traffic and will not address the
congestion and dangerous traffic problem [ have set forth. One solution which should be
considered is not to pennit an exit from this new project onto Davis and confine the
entrance and exit to County Barn.
Countryside has worked well with the Planning Commission in the past and we have
appreciated your attention. We did want to take this opportunity to express our concerns
with Mr Robert Andrea's proposing to rezone Estates (E) Zoning District to the Mixed
Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for the Davis Reserve MPUD.
Thank you.
~~ '4--r
Marcia Feeney
President of the Master Board
Countryside Golf and Country Club
AGENDA ITEM 9.E
-
Co1!l:! County
- -c-. -- _
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION
HEARING DATE: MAY 7,2009
SUBJECT:
PUDZ-2008-AR.12804, AVOW HOSPICE COMMUNITY FACILITY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD)
PROPERTY OWNERS/AGENTS:
Owners: Avow Hospice Inc.
1095 Whippoorwill Land
Naples, FL 34105
Agents: Tim Hancock, AICP
Davidson Engineering, Inc.
3530 Kraft Road, Suite 301
Naples, FL 34105
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a rezone
of the subject 15.25010 acres site from Agricultural (A) and Community Facility (CF) to
Community Facility Planned Use Development (CFPUD) to be known as Avow Hospice
CFPUD.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the west side of south of Whippoorwill Lane and
approximately 0.20 of a mile south of Pine Ridge Road (CR-896) in Section 18, Township 49
South and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page).
PURPOSEillESCRlPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner is requesting to rezone the subject site to a CFPUD in order to provide for a
larger site to allow for a proposed 5,700 square foot expansion of the existing hospice facility.
The current 36,420 square foot hospice facility is located on a 10.45 acre site that is zoned "CF"
and includes an existing lake that covers approximately half the site. The petitioner now
proposes to incorporate the 4.8 acre parcel to the south that is zoned Rural Agriculture (A). As
April 27. 2009
PUDZ-09.AR.12804
I
~'VM NQSMlfl
1!
~
~
'"
z
o
w-
~\i
wU
o
~
o
~
a.
~
~
I
I
--~-
, ~
, I,
<>. f LO
'" ~ ~
I a:
o
~
0-
~~
a.w
U~
o
o
"
I
I
LJ..
<.)
"
.
~ < 0
0 ! ~
'" ~ a.
a. ::;;
1
I
1-'
I I
I I
I r
/
/
~
t
--f
111,,,(1 HI "'11 <1r"lr"l~
I Jl~~__
I 1__-,
~ -
I I,'
;;;I~
I "
I I~_..,
1 z I
L c.. l';!2 I
i::~
'"
l'..~illJ.O~ / ~
~~::l
>ia,
,
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
,
~
!
w
~
-<
"
z, ~
i'j "
~
o
"
"
,
,
,- ~!!
.1 ~
IL ,
i l><>",....
!! ""~n""'d
.. ~~ H
.,
.l!:
8bi5
!
.
o
.
.
~,
ffiI'o'^'l-.-xJQlNOOl
>-z
Uo
w -
~\i
Ou
"'0
n.~
-,
~~~ "
l ~H
~~ ~
""-3H1S~ll'"
,
Iii ~I~
;. ~d
, . ~~ .
,
! ,
,
O'o'O~ ""J.~!lNllln T
, , ~i'
~2.
,
,
!
.11 ~~ ~ i j
N' .' . ,
g- "'- ! I
i ,
O....A3"1OO\1.........,.."
,
,
.
~~
I
~~ "'
~~"'
.
!
!
l
i-l.
~!; .
,-
~
~;;;
"
.,~l
.-: ,I ':J
-,
~ !
~ n
~~ ~'"
"
~l
~I
il
:1
~I
~:I
gl
"-,
Cl.
<(
:2:
z
o
I-
<(
o
o
.....J
depicted on the PUD Master plan, the primary access to the subject site is made by way of the
existing ingress and egress off of Whippoorwill Lane.
The Avow Hospice is a non-profit community hospice facility that is managed by a volunteer
Board of Directors and provides care for terminally ill patients and their families. They were
originally established as Hospice of Naples, Inc. in 1983 and operated under that name until
October 26, 2007 when the name was changed to Avow Hospice, Inc. A conditional use was
granted by Collier County in 1991 (PU.90-27) for a hospice facility and over the years they
have amended the Conditional Use to expand the facility. Then in 2001 the applicant
requested a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) and Residential Multi-Family (RMF-6)
Zoning Districts to a Community Facility Zoning District. The proposed rezone will allow
Avow Hospice to expand and meet the growing demand for their services by adding
programs, services, and staff to meet the needs of Collier County residents.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Kraft Corporate Plaza, Commercial, offices and the Naples Nissan automotive
dealership; zoned Pine Ridge Center West PUD (Ord. No. 01-09), Pine Ridge Center
PUD (Ord. No. 01-03), and Pine View CPUD (Ord. No. 07.06).
East: Whippoorwill Lane right-of-way (ROW), Single-Family and Multi-Family homes, and
Seagate Baptist Church of Christ; zoned Whippoorwill Lakes PUD (Ord. No. 00-16),
and Rural Agricultural (A).
South: Single-Family homes, and vacant land; zoned Arlington Lakes PUD (Ord. No. 00-67),
and Residential Single-Family (RSF.5).
West: Single-Family and Multi-Family homes, and vacant property; zoned Brynwood
Preserve PUD (Ord. No. 00-73), and Rural Agricultural (A).
Aerial View
April 27. 2009
PUDZ-09-AR.12804
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Laud Use Element (FLUE): The property is currently zoned Rural Agricultural (A)
and Community Facility (CF) and is determined to be within Urban Designation, Urban
Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM),
which allows for a variety of non-residential uses, including: essential services; parks and
recreational uses; community facilities and child care centers.
Community Facility (CF) district: This zoning district, according to the Land Development
Code (LDC), is intended to implement the FLUE by permitting nonresidential land uses.
These uses include public facilities, institutional uses, open space uses, recreational uses,
water-related or dependent uses, and other such uses generally serving the community at-
large. This zoning district is limited to properties within the Urban Mixed Use district as
identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). In order to promote smart growth policies,
and adhere to the existing development character of the County, the following policies shall
be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Policy 7.1, The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their
properties to fronting collector and arterial roads. except where no such connection can be
made without violating intersection !>pacing requirements of the Land Development Code
(iDC). (Staff Comment: As depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, the project has access
onto Whippoorwill Lane which connects to an arterial road, Pine Ridge Road (CR-896).
This site does not abut an arterial or collector road.)
Policy 72, The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help
reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for
traffic signals. (Staff Comment: As depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, there is an
existing access to Whippoorwill Lane on the east side of the subject property. Given the
small size of the project and the site's configuration, a loop road may not be feasible,
and is not shown on the PUD Map.)
Policy 7.3, All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local
streets and their interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments
regardless of land use type. (Staff Comment: Neither the Conceptual Site Plan or the
application addresses this issue. Given the small size/character of the project and
surrounding land uses, interconnect access to adjoining neighborhoods may not be
feasible.)
Policy 74, The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities
with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices
and types. (Staff Comment: This project provides open space and sidewalks, and
allowable land uses include civic facilities. Density and housing types are not applicable
to this non-residential project.)
CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed rezone may be
deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE).
April 27, 2009
PUDZ-09-AR-12804
,
j
Conservation and Coastal Management Element: This project is consistent with the
objectives of policy 2.2.2 of Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element of the GMP. The water management system is comprised of a series of dry detention
basins and a control structure which discharges into the onsite pond. The water management
system for the project proposes the construction of a perimeter berm and the water quality
pre-treatment will be expanded to handle the proposed development.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and notes the following:
Pine Ridge Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link
67.2, Pine Ridge Road (CR-896) between Livingston Road and Interstate 75 (1-75). The
project generates I PM peak hour, peak direction trip on this link, which represents a 0.0027
percent impact on Pine Ridge Road (CR-896).
This concurrency link, which is also a hurricane evacuation route, reflects a negative capacity
of 456 trips in the adopted 2008 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) (adopted late
2008) and is at Level of Service "F". Historically, the 2007 AUIR (adopted late 2007), under
which this petition was reviewed in September of 2008, showed a positive remaining
capacity of 177 trips. Upon further investigation by staff in April 2009, the failure of this
roadway is primarily attributable to trips banked in the concurrency system during 2007.
Many of these trips have since been removed from the trip bank during 2008 (after the
adoption of the 2008 AUIR) upon completion of the projects that were reserving those trips.
When removed from the reserved trip bank, these trips are now considered part of the
background traffic. Therefore, the current trip bank (as of 4/15/2009) reflects that the
adjacent roadway fails by 192 trips.
The Transportation Planning Staff also indicates that the project traffic's V/C
(volume/capacity) ratio is currently 1.05, and the project's impact is below I percent, which
is consistent with Policy 5.2 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. The proposed project
is located within the East Central Transportation Concurrency Management Area [TCMA] ,
in which 90.47 percent of the lane miles meet the minimum Level of Service [LOS]
according to the 2008 AUIR. The project can be considered consistent with Policy 5.7 ofthe
Transportation Element, as the greater than the minimum 85 percent of lane miles meet the
minimum LOS within the TCMA. In accordance with Policy 5.8.d of the Transportation
Element, this project's 0.0027 percent PM Peak hour impact on a hurricane evacuation route
that is currently over capacity may NOT be considered de minimis, and requires a
"congestion mitigation payment".
Mitigation: At the time of Site Development Plan review, the petitioner shall pay their
proportionate share costs toward the intersection improvements at Pine Ridge Road (CR-896)
and Whippoorwill Lane, as well as proportionate share towards Whippoorwill Lane
improvements.
CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed rezone may be
deemed consistent with policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.7, and policy 5.8.d of the Transportation element
April 27, 2009
PUDZ-09-AR-12804
4
of the GMP subject to the recommended mitigation noted above. Staff recommends the
proportionate share be based on the highest peak operational impacts produced by this site,
which are present during the AM Peak hour. The proportionate share will be calculated
during the Development Order application process.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon
which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code
(LDC) Subsections lO.02.l3.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation, and 10.03.05.1,
Planning Commission Hearing and Report to the Board of County Commissioners, which
establish factual bases to support a recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as
the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in
turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are
completed as part of this staff report.
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff have reviewed this application and
have found that the proposed rezone increases the preserve requirement from the original
0.17 acres of native vegetation along the south property line to 0.30 acre preserve in the
southwest comer of the site and adjacent to the Brynwood PUD preserve.
Emerf!encv Manaf!ement: The Avow Hospice, Inc PUDZ is located in a category three
(CAT 3) hurricane surge zone, which requires evacuation during some hurricane events.
While there is currently no impact mitigation required for this, it should be noted that
approval of this CFPUD Rezone increases the evacuation and sheltering requirements for the
county.
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the subject CFPUD
and recommends approval subject to the Developer Commitments contained in Exhibit "E"
of the CFPUD Ordinance.
Utility Review: The CFPUD is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District
boundary, and is subject to the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability
Letter from the Collier County Public Utilities Division at the time of the SDP.
All portions of this project to be developed shall be required to comply with current
Ordinance 2004-31, as amended. According to the County's Geographic Information System
(GIS), there is an existing 12-inch reduced to 10-inch water main on Whippoorwill Lane, and
an existing lO-inch force main on Whippoorwill Lane.
Zoninf! Review: Development within a PUD district shall be compatible with established or
planned uses of surrounding neighborhoods and property as set forth in Subsection 4.07.02.B
of the Land Development Code. As previously stated, the subject site is adjacent on the north
to commercial development. Thc proposed CFPUD will provide a transition from the
commercial zoning to the surrounding residential land uses on the eastern, southern and
western boundary of the subject property.
April 27, 2009
PUDZ-09-AR-12804
5
The existing Hospice Facility land use is consistent with those allowed in the Urban Mixed
Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict set forth in the GMP. To achieve compatibility
with adjacent uses, the site has been designed to minimize its impact on the surrounding
residential neighborhood by providing a six (6) foot high masonry wall along the south
property line adjacent to the single-family (RSF-5) development, and a four (4) foot high
masonry wall three (3) feet off the right-of-way (ROW) on Whippoorwill Lane that is
adjacent to the single-family homes.
Proposed Development Standards for Principal Structures vs. CF Standards ofLDC
Proposed Community Facility
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square 10,000 sq. ft.
feet
Minimum Lot Width 80 feet 80 feet
Minimum Floor Area 1,000 square feet 1 ,000 square feet
Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 50% of building beight: but >25 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet
Minimum Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet
Minimum Distance between 25 feet 50% of building height; but :::25 feet
Structures
Maximum Building Height Zoned: 35 feet 30 feet
Actual: 47 feet
The CPUD's development standards are contained in Exhibit B of the CFPUD ordinance.
Since Group Care Facilities are permitted in the CF Zoning Districts, the CF Zoning District
was used in the table on page 6 of this staff report as a benchmark to evaluate the proposed
development standards against comparable LDC standards. The development standards that
are provided in Exhibit B of the CFPUD indicate that the structures will have a zoned height
of 35 feet and an actual height of 47 feet. The setbacks are similar to the setbacks for
Community Facility in Section 4.02.01 of the LDC.
The Master Plan as provided in Exhibit C of the CFPUD Ordinance depicts the areas of
development, water management, traffic and pedestrian circulation. Furthermore, the Master
Plan depicts the 0.30 acre of preserve along the southwest boundary of the subject site. Notes
on the Master Plan reinforce the petitioner's intention to provide 56.7 percent open space,
water management, landscaping, and preserve. The site will continue to be accessed from
Whippoorwill Lane. With the development standards contained in the proposed CFPUD, the
project would be compatible with the residential and commercial land uses in the
surrounding area.
Comvliance with Subsection 10. 02. 13.B. 5. of the LDC: Planning commiSSIOn
recommendation. The planning commission shall make written findings as required in
Section 10.02.08, of the LDC, and shall recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) either approval of the PUD rezoning as proposed; approval with
conditions or modifications; or denial. In support of its recommendation, the planning
April 27. 2009
PUDZ-09-AR-12804
6
commission shall make findings as to the PUD master plan's compliance with the following
criteria in addition to the findings in Section lO.02.13.B., [Staffs responses to these criteria
are provided in bold non-italicized font]
a. 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 type and pattern of development have already been reviewed and found
compliant with all applicable LDC and GMP regulations. Furthermore, this
project, as it develops, will be required to comply with all county regulations
regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Sections 6.02.04
through 6.02.08, of the LDC. In addition, the proposed rezone will not change
the current land uses that were approved in 2001.
b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, orfor 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 andjacilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be
made only after consultation with the county attorney
Documents submitted with this application provided satisfactory evidence of
unified control. The proposed CFPUD document and the applicable LDC
development regulations make appropriate provisions for the continuing
operation and maintenance of common areas.
c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals. objectives, policies and the Future
Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
On page three (3) of this staff report, the Comprehensive Planning Department
provided a detailed analysis of how this project meets the goals, objectives,
policies and FLUE of the GMP.
d The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions onlocalion of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering
and screening requirements.
The CFPUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize the internal and
external land use to be compatible with community. The developer will have to
adhere to the development standards that arc contained in the CFPUD
Ordinance, and the buffering requirements on the Master Plan, which are
comparable to the standards contained in the LDC.
e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Aprit 27. 2009
PUDZ-09-AR-12804
7
The amount of usable open space for Avow Hospice CFPUD is 8.68:1: acres. This
project exceeds the minimum requirement of the LDC.
f The timing or sequence of development jar the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Development has already commenced, and has been through concurreucy
requirements which were triggered during the site development process.
Additionally, any future development will have to adhere to the transportation
commitments contained in the CFPUD Ordinance as well as be in compliance
with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when the
development approvals are sought.
g The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion
Capacity of wastewater and utilities are currently available for this development
of the subject site. In addition, the petitioner proposes contribution of
proportionate share costs toward the intersection of Pine Ridge Road (CR-896)
at Whippoorwill Lane, as well as proportionate share towards Whippoorwill
Lane improvements when the developer comes in to expand the project. At that
time, the subject site will be reviewed again for supporting infrastructure, and
must be in compliance with all LOS to accommodate the expansion.
h. 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 development standards proposed are similar to the development standards
described in Section 4.02.01, and Section 4.07.02, of the LDC.
Comvliance with Subsection 10.03.05.1 of the LDC: Nature of requirements of planning
commission report. When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations of the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners
(BeC) shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered the proposed
change in relation to the following, when applicable:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies andfuture land use map and the elements of the growth management plan
As noted in the GMP Consistency portion of this report, the proposed uses and
development standards would generally further the goals and objectives of the
FLUE and the applicable portions of the CCME and the Transportation
Element. Therefore staff recommendation that this petition be deemed consistent
with the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern
April 27. 2009
PUDZ-09-AR-12804
8
The existing land use pattern to the north includes the Kraft Corporate Plaza,
commercial retail, offices and the Naples Nissan automotive dealership. The
existing land use pattern to the east, west and south includes Single-Family and
Multi-Family dwellings.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts.
Staff is of the opinion that because the proposed CFPUD includes the existing
CF zoned property, it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to the
adjacent and nearby commercial and residential zoning districts. Furthermore,
the rezone request does not change the projects consistency with the FLUE.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed[or change.
As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the existing
district boundaries are logically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the
property and follow the property ownership boundaries. As depicted on the
CFPUD Master Plan, the additional 4.801: acre site will be used for future
development.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary
The applicant is seeking to rezone to the proposed CFPUD to accommodate the
expansion ofthe Avow Hospice facility.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The CFPUD is designed to provide protection of the development from
potentially adverse surrounding influences and protection of the surrounding
area from potentially adverse influences generated by or within the CFPUD.
Fences, walls, or vegetative screening at the boundaries of the CFPUD district
shall be provided, at a minimum, in accordance with the landscaping/buffering
requirements of Sections 4.06.01 through 4.06.06, of the LDC. These Sections
have been designed to protect residents from undesirable views, lighting, noise,
or other adverse off-site influences, or to protect residents of adjoining districts
from similar possible influences from within the PUD district.
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.
At the time of development order approval, the petitioner shall contribute a
proportionate share costs toward the intersection improvements at Pine Ridge
Apri/27. 2009
PUDZ-09-AR-12804
9
Road (CR-896) and Whippoorwill Lane, as weII as proportionate share towards
the Whippoorwill Lane improvements. Therefore, this petition can be deemed
consistent with both policies 5.1 and 5.8.d, of the Transportation Element of the
GMP. Therefore, this project should not create types of traffic deemed
incompatible with surrounding land uses and it should not affect the public
safety.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
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. AdditionaIIy, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place
that will ensure review for drainage on new developments will not create
drainage problems.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The development standards provided in the Avow Hospice CFPUD are similar
to the current CF development standards provided in Section 4.02.01, of the
LDC. Also, the proposed CFPUD will be adhering to the buffering requirement
per the LDC and the existing 7.04 acres lake will help to maintain light and air
circulation to the adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area.
The subject site was approved in 2001 for CF Zoning District and it was found
during the approval process that the rezone should not adversely affect property
values. Given that the currently approved hospice land use is not changing, the
proposed CFPUD should not adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area. It should be noted that the surrounding commercial and residential PUD's
were approved after the development of the Avow Hospice facility. However,
this is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be
internal or external to the subject property. Since property valuation is affected
by several factors including zoning, zoning by itself mayor may not affect the
values of the adjacent area.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development
of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The current landscape and buffer requirements in conjunction with the preserve
area and setbacks, and the proposed development standards combined with the
site development plan approval process, provides assurance that the proposed
CFPUD will not result in a deterrence for improvements to the adjacent
properties.
April 27, 2009
PUDZ-09-AR-12804
10
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
The subject site will not constitute a special privilege because the proposed
development complies with the GMP. On page three (3) of this report, the
CFPUD request was found to be consistent with the FLUE. 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
The property is being used in accordance with the existing zoning which is
Community Facility. The proposed rezone is necessary to incorporate the
Agricultural zoned property to the project that will be used for expansion
purposes.
14. Whether the change suggested is out ojscale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the county.
Avow Hospice CFPUD was designed to meet the intent of the Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and the site design standard of a
Community Facility Zoning District.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
This criterion does not apply since Avow Hospice facility has existed since the
original conditional use was granted by Collier County in 1991 and was
reevaluated in 2001 when the property was rezoned to the CF Zoning District.
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
The extent of the site alteration will be required to go through extensive
evaluation by federal, state, and local development regulations during any site
development plan approval process.
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.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria describe in the PUD
Ordinance, as well as all the regulations set forth in the LDC and the Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance.
April 27. 2009
PUDZ-09.AR.12804
II
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.
This will be determined by the BCC during the advertised public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL /EAC):
Even though the subject site has already been developed, the applicant was required to
submit an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this petition. Based on the findings of
the EIS, this project qualifies for an EAC waiver because no listed species were found and
no wetlands on site will be impacted. As a result, they were not required to have a hearing
before the EAC.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING /NIM):
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on November 24, 2008 at 5:30 P.M. at
the Hawthorne Hotel. Five people from the public attended, as well as Jeff Marshal, Property
Manager for Avow, and the applicant's team (Tim Hancock and Fred Hood with Davidson
Engineering, Inc.) and county staff. Tim Hancock presented an overview of the requested
CFPUD and why the applicant wants to rezone from Rural Agriculture (A) and Community
Facility Zoning Districts. Mr. Hancock explained the applicant purchased the neighboring
property and wanted to provide a comprehensive development plan to the whole property and
felt a PUD zoning was the most practical. Of those who spoke, the following concerns were
addressed: native preservation, listed species and buffering; those who were in attendance
expressed that they were pleased to see the preserves were not being removed and no listed
species were on the property.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for PUDZ-2008-AR-12804 revised on
April 27, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-12804 to the Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following
recommendation:
I. Staff recommends the proportionate share be based on the highest peak operational
impacts produced by this site, which are present during the AM Peak hour. The
proportionate share will be calculated during the Development Order application
process.
April 27. 2009
PUDZ-09-AR-J2804
12
PREPARED BY:
Z?({i~= 0
MELISS ZONE, P ~L PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
6-( -/3- ~C;
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
/;~ -
RA Y D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
4'2_'-01
DATE
; U----- '1:- {~-' '2.1
SUSA . ISTENES, AICP, lRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
- 07
DATE
APPROVED BY:
H K. SCHMITT ADMIN I TRATOR
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
VICES DIVISION
~/z7 fttJO;7
, { , DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the June 23, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
April 27. 2009
PUDZ-09-AR-12804
13
caffrer County
Memorandum
To:
Melissa Zone, Principal Planner, Zoning and Land Development Review
From:
Beth Yang, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department
Date:
February 26, 2008
Subject:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-2008-AR-12804
PETITION NAME: Avow Hospice CFPUD
REQUEST: To rezone the ic15.25 acre site from A (Agriculture) and CF (Community Facility) to
CFPUD (Community Facility Planned Unit Development) to allow the uses of the CF zoning district
which includes future expansion of the existing hospice use, an essential service.
LOCATION: The site is positioned along the west side of Whippoorwill Lane, approximately 1/5 of
a mile south of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The property is currently zoned "A" Agricultural
and "CF" Community Facility and is determined to be within Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map, which allows for a variety of non-
residential uses, including: essential services; parks and recreational uses; community facilities and
child care centers.
Community Facility (CF) district: This zoning district, according to the Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC), is intended to implement the FLUE by permitting nomesidentialland uses.
These uses include public facilities, institutional uses, open space uses, recreational uses, water-related
or dependent uses, and other such uses generally serving the community at-large. This zoning district
is limited to properties within the Urban Mixed Use district as identified on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM).
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review as part
of their review of the petition in its entirety.
Page 1 0[2
'>"""_._--"~-'--'----" "-~~--"-"'._~..~-""'.._"
_.._.~..,.,.,-_.~-_._----~------,--
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier
County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,
where applicable.
Policy 7.1
The County shall encourage developers and property owncrs to connect their properties to fronting
collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating
intersection spacing requiremcnts of the Land Development Code. ((Staff Comment: As depicted on the
Conceptual Site Plan. the proiect has access onto Whippoorwill Lane which connects to an arterial road.
Pine Rid!!e Road. This site does not abut an arterial or collector road.)
Policy 7.2
The County shall cncourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (Staff
Comment: As depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, there is an existin!! access to Whippoorwill Lane on the
east side of the subiect propertv. Given the small size of the proiect and the site's confi!!uration. a loop road
mav not be feasible, and is not shown on the PUD Map.)
Policy 7.3
All new and eXlstmg developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their
interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or othcr developments regardless of land use type.
(Staff Comment: Neither the Conceptual Site Plan nor the application addresses this issue. Given the small
size/character of the proiect and surroundi/lfl land uses, interconnect access to adjoinin!! nei!!hborhoods mav
not be feasible.)
Policy 7.4
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable commumtles with a blend of
densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (Staff
Comment: This proiect provides open space and sidewalks. and allowable land uses include civic facilities.
Densitv and housin!! tvpes are not applicable to this non-residentialproiect.)
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed rezone may be deemed consistent with the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE).
(ON CD PLUS)
cc: Susan lstenes, AICP, Zoning and Land Development Review Department, Director
Ray Bellows, Zoning and Land Development Review Department Planning Manager
Randy Cohen, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Department, Director
David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Department, Planning Manager
Page 2 of2
.:r-Mn . "
May 7,2009
Ms. Jamie Bussel, Program Officer
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Route One and College Road East
Princeton, NJ 08543
Ms. Bussel:
Please consider this letter of support from the Collier County Planning
Commission to encourage the County to strengthen its regulatory commitment to
Smart Growth Principles and to affect policy change to increase public health for
the citizens of Collier County.
We share your mission to promote healthier eating, more actiye liYing and a safer
Collier County by the adoption of enYironmental, systems and policy changes
related to Smart Growth.
We also understand how Smart Growth has a positiye affect on the obesity
epidemic in Collier County amongst children and low-income families. We
support the Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities grant application from the Collier
County Health Department.