CCPC Backup 06/04/2009 R
CCPC
REGULAR
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
JUNE 4, 2009
(Cuf+ ~fIkr
AGENDA
Revised
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 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 MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY TilE 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
A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION 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, wmCH 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 - MAY 7, 2009
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MAY 25, 2009
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: CU-2009-AR-14137, St. Monica's Episcopal Church, Inc., represented by Heidi K. Williams,
AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor, Inc., is requesting two new Conditional Uses pursuant to the Land Development
Code Section 2.03.0I.B.I.C., in the Estates Zoning District. The conditional uses being requested are as
follows: LDC 2.03.0I.B.I.C.3, to allow a child care center; and 2.03.0I.B.I.CA, to allow a private school
related to the existing religious facility. The subject property is located at 7070 Immokalee Road, on the
south side of Immokalee Road, west of the Logan Boulevard Extension, in Section 29, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
1
B. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-13967, The Collier County Department of Parks and Recreation, represented
by Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates. is requesting a Rezone from the Residential
Single-Family (RSF-4), Village Residential (VR) and Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO) zoning districts to
the Public (P) Zoning District for a community park. The approximately 2.62-acre waterfront property is
located on the north side of Pear Tree A venue in Goodland, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) (Companion item to 9.C)
C. Petition: V A-2008-AR-13671, The Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, represented by
Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, is requesting eleven variances from LDC
subsection 4.06.02 regarding buffer requirements and one variance from LDC subsection 4.02.03 regarding
standards for location of accessory buildings and structures, with all 12 variances being for a community
park in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-4) and Village Residential (VR) zoning districts with a
Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO). The 2.62-acre subject property is located in Goodland, in Section 18,
Township 52 South, Range 27 East. Collier County. Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
(Companion item to 9_ H)
10. OLD BUSINESS
I I. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
6/04/09 cepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr
2
Co~r Cou-nty
"lL. 1&1lt...- - _ l..~
Memorandum
From:
Melissa Zone, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning and Land Development Review
Department
Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Plaoner, and David Weeks, AICP, Planning
Maoager, Comprehensive Planning Department
To:
Date:
May 15,2009
Subject:
Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Consistency Review #2
PETITION NUMBER: CU-2009-AR-14137
PETITION NAME: St. Monica's Episcopal Church, Inc. Conditional Use Application
REQUEST: Conditional use to allow for the addition of a weekday daycare aocllor small
private school within the existing church use facilities. The approval of this request will not
result in aoy greater physical development thao that already approved for this site.
LOCATION: The subject property contains 0=5.50 acres aod is located on the south side of
Immokalee Road, west of the Logao Boulevard Extension, immediately east of a North Naples
Fire Control District station, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, having a physical
address of 7070 Immokalee Road.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS:
The subject property, as identified on the Future Laod Use Map of the Golden Gate Area Master
Plao (GGAMP), is designated Estates/Estates - Mixed Use District/Residential Estates
Subdistrict. Relevaot to this petition, the designation allows certain non-residential uses -
including conditional uses listed in the E, Estates, zoning district - subject to locational
restrictions. The site is zoned E, Estates, which allows daycare center aod private school uses
(aod church), subject to conditional use approval.
The "Conditional Uses Subdistrict" in the Estates - Mixed Use District contains specific
provisions for conditional uses (CUs) in Golden Gate Estates, including Traositional Conditional
Uses as follows (see below):
d) Transitional Conditional Uses:
Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas. A Transitional Area is defined as
an area located between existing non-residential and residential areas. The purpose of
this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to existing non-
residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for residential use. The
conditional use will act as a buffer between non-residential and residential areas.
The following criteria shall apply for Transitional Conditional Use requests:
. Site shall be directly adjacent to a non-residential use (zoned or developed);
staff views this as an incentive ("carrot") offered to the County, presumably to increase or assure
compatibility, to gain petition approval. The Board included this offer as a stipulation in the
approving resolution - "the entire east 80 feet of Tract 131 shall remain undeveloped in
perpetuity as a natural vegetated landscape buffer." (Staff has found nothing in the record to
indicate this 80 feet wide strip was in lieu of any LDC or GMP requirements for native
vegetation retention or open space, rather was in addition to any such requirements.) Another
condition of approval was retention of a 55 feet wide strip of native vegetation along the south
property line as a buffer, with some exception for where a caretaker's residence is to be located.
As to the 5-acre size limitation in thc GGAMP, though the applicant in 1994 explained how the
site complied, the petition legal description failed to exclude the south 30 feet which is
comprised of right-of-way for 24th A venue NW, thus the actual site acreage approved was 5.50
acres. Research has revealed that the 1994 Staff Report and Executive Summary both stated the
site size was five acres without explanation, nor was there any explanation in the minutes, all of
which suggests the Board approved that CU in belicf that the site comprised live acres thus was
consistent with the GGAMP size limitation.
For the present 2009 CU petition, the applicant originally submitted the petition to include (add)
the East 80 feet of Tract 131 resulting in total site acreage of 6.09 acres. More recently, the
applicant submitted a revised boundary survey and legal description (dated May 7, 2009) that is
identical to the legal description ofthc 1994 CU petition - for 5.50 acres. As noted previously,
the south 30 feet of the site is road right-of-way, comprising 0.513 acres. Components of the
project development - buildings, water management, parking, landscapc buffcrs, required native
vegetation retention, etc. - cannot be located in the right-ol~way; the right-of-way is unusable for
the project. Therefore, exclusion of the right-ol~way area would havc no adverse impacts upon
the project, and would result in consistency with the 5-acre size limitation in the GGAMP (5.50
acres - 0.51 acres = 4.99 acres).
FLUE Policy 5.4 states: "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to,
the surrounding lands uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." It is the responsibility
of the Zoning and Land Development Review staff, as part of their review of the petition in
its entirety, to perform the compatibility analysis.
FLUE Obiective 7 and relevant policies are listed below, each policy followed by staff analysis
in bold print.
Objective 7:
"In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The
Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and
adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the jiJllowing policies shall be
implementedfor new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. "
Policy 7.1
"The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to
Fonting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without
violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. " As depicted on
3
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLffiR COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONTJITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A
PRNATE SCHOOL AND/OR DAY CARE RELATING TO THE
EXISTING RELIGIOUS FACILITY WITHIN THE ESTATES (E)
ZONING DISTRlCT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 2.03.01.B.l.C
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 28 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLffiR COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and
Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has confened on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and
enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection ofthe 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 (Board), being the duly appointed and constituted
planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public heanng after notice as in said regulations
made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use of a private school and/or a
day care related to the existing religious facility within the Estates (E) Zoning District pursuant to
Subsection 2.03.01.B.l.c of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter
described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has made fmdings as described in Exhibit "A"
that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific
requirements governing the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in
accordance with Subsection 1O.08.00D. ofthe 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2009-AR-14137
The following facts are found:
1. Section 10.08 of the Land Dcvelopment Code authoriL.es the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional usc will not advcrsely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or ncighborhood because of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Ycs No
B. Ingress and egress to propcrty and proposed structurcs thcreon with particular
rcference to automotive and pedestrian safcty and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in casc of fire or catastrophc:
Adequate ingress & egress
Ycs No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noisc, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or__ Affect mitigated by <text>
. Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent propertics and other property in the district:
Compatible usc within district
Ycs No
Based on the above findings, this conditional usc should, with stipulations, (copy attached)
(should not) be recommended for approval.
DATE:
CHAIRMAN:
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TRACT 130, TRACT 131 LESS THE EAST 80 FEET, AND THE EAST 165 FEET OF
TRACT 111, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT No. 97 F AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 7, PAGES 95 AND 96, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LESS THE NORTH 50 FEET THEREOF OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Exhibit B
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL
CU-2009-AR-14137
St. Monica's Episcopal Church
1. The Conditionalllse shall apply only the portion of the site that excludes the 0.91
acres conservation easement to the east (less 80 feet of Tract 131).
2. The petitioner shall revise the legal description to exclude the south 30 feet of the
site to reflect a 5 acre site or, the Board of Zoning Appeals could determine that
the past Board knowingly approved the 1994 Cll petition at 5.5 acres and found it
consistent with the GGAMP at tbat time, and determine that the present petition
utilizing the same legal description as in 1994 is also consistent with the GGAMP.
3. The applicant has agreed to phase the enrollment of students by limiting
attendance to a maximum number of 20 new students during the first year of the
project, and subsequent years at 20 students until the six-lane capacity becomes
available on lmmokalce Road.
4. Maximum enrollment for tbe small private school shall be 100 students or 90
students for the weekday child center.
5. The owner sball amcnd the Church's SDP to provide the required on-site
preserves for a 5 acre site in order to be found consistent with fhe GMP and LDC
or, the BZA could determine that the past Board knowingly approved the 1994
Cll petition with the 0.91 acres to the cast (less 80 feet of Tract 131) as an off-site
preserve, and determine tbat the present conditional use is also consistent with the
GGAMP.
6. Tbe applicant shall amend the site plan prior to the commencement of school to
include safe and adequate drop off and pickup area for the pre-kindergarten to
12th grade school or child care center to ensure the safety of the children.
7. After-school programs are limited to tbe pre-kindergarten to 12th grade school
functions and register students only.
Exhibit D
AGENDA ITEM 9-A
-
<'
Ccilntr County
,..:_:::::~(;;;;;;,,,1'.>~,:S<~~;.;r:,.~;r.:::7.~~t":::=::.:;::;":~::-,,,::~,::.;:.;::z;:
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: JUNE 4, 2009
SUBJECT: CU-2009-AR-14137, ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner:
St. Monica's Episcopal Church, Inc.
7070 Immokalee Road
Naples, FL 34119
Agent:
Heidi K. Williams, AICP, Senior Planner
Q. Grady Minor, Inc
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for
Conditional Use No.3 and Conditional Use No.4, of the Estates (E) Zoning District, as provided
in Section 2.03.01.B.l.c, of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), to allow for the
addition of a weekday child care center and/or a private school within the existing church
facility.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject 5-acre site is located on the south side of Immokalee Road (CR-846) and west of the
Logan Boulevard Extension, adjacent to the east of North Naples Fire Control District Station in
Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on
the following page)
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner seeks a new Conditional Use for an expansion to the church use by adding a
private school and/or a weekday child care center within the existing facilities. The proposed
Conditional Use petition is intended to supplement the previous conditional use approval
GU-2009-AR-14137 Page 1 of 12
Revised: 5/20109
.
r.'-..~
. . .
, . . .
. . . .
. . .
. . . ,
. . . ,
"'1""
" '
'. ~(,'
. , ;~. . .
. !ilol!' .
. ~a .
. . . ,
II
.'
'I
~~
i
!
l
i
i
I
I
~ I-
N
N
~
~
a
~
<J
,~ .
': ~ :
......
:~:: .
-
~.:;;,~~[~:~.. L1J ,~,_. ~
_0- ~._. 1._._ _._ _ ___
T-,.- -.-
.-..-.- t"--.--.-.-..-.---"-; i
[.
3a
~~
~
II
'I ern- [J
- nil;
~~ ~9~
~~ "H
;
-'j
-J :1.
:!
_.~~~..:L'
Z~"<"'<TH
USE,VlC.on
"
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
,
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I!
01
i i
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
SITE DATA
lOT"'l Silt AAU, ~ 6.Cl9:t ACRES
1"'OI!,~m~Rvt;
INDlCDI\JJS v{;CE1~TlOH l 0.15 _ REQUIRED PRESOIVE
~.ll'S X 0.15 _ O.Pl ACRtS
z .
!l
00
j
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES P A
CIVIL ENGlNEERS . u.ND SURVEYORS' fLANNEll.S . U.NDSCAPE~R~HI~("T~
~~~:(;S . ~~~;~~:: . ~;:::;~,::;'2
ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
WWW.GRAO),MINOR.rm~
OWNF.R/nF.VF.I.opF.R
St. Monica's
Episcopal Church
7070 Immokole-e Rood
Noples. Fl 34119
(239) 591-4550
Attachment "B"
"
CONDITIONAL USE
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
~=
,..,00'
JtI. ctIP~
~
..~
~~
11\& NAII~
-,
sm~1';T 1 OF 1
AERIAL PHOTO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Laud Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use
Map of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) as Estates/Estates - Mixed Use
District/Residential Estates Subdistrict. Relevant to this petition, the designation allows certain
non-residential uses-including conditional uses listed in the E, Estates, zoning district-subject
to locational restrictions. The site is zoned E, Estates, which allows daycare center and private
school uses (and church), subject to conditional use approval.
The "Conditional Uses Subdistrict" in the Estates ~ Mixed Use District contains specific
provisions for conditional uses (CUs) in Golden Gate Estates, including Transitional Conditional
Uses as follows (see below):
d) Transitional Conditional Uses:
Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas. A Transitional Area is defined
as an area located between existing non-residential and residential areas. The
purpose of this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to
existing non-residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for
residential use. The conditional use will act as a buffer between non-residential and
residential areas.
GU-2009.AR-14137
Revised: 5/20/09
Page 5 of 12
East 80 feet offered as a butTer. thus the applicant was olfering not to develop off-site property;
staff views this as an incentive ("carrot") offered to the County, presumably to increase or assure
compatibility, to gain petition approval. The Board included this offer as a stipulation in the
approving resolution - "the entire east 80 feet of Tract 131 shall remain undeveloped in
perpetuity as a natural vegetated landscape buffer." (Staff has found nothing in the record to
indicate this 80 feet wide strip was in lieu of any LDC or GMP requirements for native
vegetation retention or open space, rather was in addition to any such requirements.) Another
condition of approval was retention of a 55 feet wide strip of native vegetation along the south
property line as a buffer, with some exception for where a caretaker's residence is to be located.
As to the 5-acre size limitation in the GGAMP, though the applicant in 1994 explained how the
site complied, the petition legal description failed to exclude the south 30 feet which is
comprised of right-of-way for 24th Avenue NW, thus the actual site acreage approved was 5.50
acres. Research has revealed that the 1994 Staff Report and Executive Sununary both stated the
site size was five acres without explanation, nor was there any explanation in the minutes, all of
which suggests the Board approved that CU in belief that the site comprised five acres thus was
consistent with the GGAMP size limitation.
For the present 2009 CU petition, the applicant originally submitted the petition to include (add)
the East 80 feet of Tract 13] resulting in total site acreage of 6.09 acres. More recently, the
applicant submitted a revised boundary survey and legal description (dated May 7, 2009) that is
identical to the legal description of the 1994 CU petition - for 5.50 acres. As noted previously,
the south 30 feet of the site is road right-of-way, comprising 0.513 acres. Components of the
project development - buildings, water management, parbng, landscape buffers, required native
vegetation retention, etc. - cannot be located in the right-of~way; the right-of-way is unusable for
the project. Therefore, exclusion of the right-of-way area would have no adverse impacts upon
the project, and would result in consistency with thc 5-acre size limitation in the GGAMP (5.50
acres - 0.51 acres = 4.99 acres).
FLUE Policy 5.4 states: "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary
to, the surrounding lands uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." Please see the
Zoning and Land Development Review staff analysis that was done as part o(their review of the
petition in its entirety.
FLUE Obiective 7 and relevant policies are listed below, each policy followed by staff analysis
in bold print.
Objective 7:
"In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The
Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, 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."
As depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. this project has one existing ingress/egress direct
CU-2009-AR-14137
Revised: 5/20/09
Page 7 of 12
Immokalee Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link
43.1, Immokalee Road (CR-846) between Interstate 75 (1-75) and Logan Boulevard. The project
generates 34 PM peak hour, peak direction trip on this link, which represents a 1.47 percent
impact on Immokalee Road (CR-846) upon reaching build-out condition.
This concurrency link reflects a negative capacity of a negative 221 trips in the adopted 2008
Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) (adopted late 2008) and is at Level of Service "F",
and reflects a Volwne/Capacity ratio of 1.095 (109.5 percent). The roadway capacity is currently
reflective of a Four-lane divided facility, and upon completion of the 1-75 interchange
improvements at this location in 2010 is anticipated to return to a six-lane divided capacity. At
such time that capacity becomes available, this project is anticipated to have a positive remaining
capacity of approximately 1 ,000 trips..
*For this statement, the 2008 AUIR background volume was used, and then compared to the
2007 adopted six-lane volun1e. Variation to the number of remaining trips is possible, as the
annually recorded background traffic has shown a negative trend throughout the County and the
trip bank has been adjusted as projects are approved or completed for construction.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): The Environmental Review staff
has supplied the following analysis of the petition. The subject site was reviewed based on the
application and survey that was provided by the applicant and depicted on the recently approved
site plan, SDPA-08-AR-130n. This SDP supplies the minimum requirement of 15 percent
native vegetation preservation based on a 6.09 acre project boundary. As part of the consistency
review of this CU, Environmental staff was informed of the GGAMP limitation of five (5) acres
for a conditional use application. Since the CU conceptual site plan does not depict the minimum
required 15 percent native vegetation retention for a project of five (5) acres or more, staff does
not find the CU to be consistent with LDC 3.05.07 B which requires native vegetation to be
preserved on site. Since the site does not have the required on-site preserves, staff is requesting
the applicant to amend the Church's SDP to provide the required on-site preserves for a five (5)
acre site in order to be found consistent with the GGAMP and LDC.
ANALYSIS:
Before any Conditional Use recommendation can be offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA), the Planning Commission must make ti.ndings that: I) approval of the Conditional Use
will not adversely affect the public interest; and 2) all specific requirements for the individual
Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the
following matters, where applicable:
1. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan.
This request is not consistent with the CCME or LDC. However, if the BZA approves the
conditions proposed by staff; this project will be in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the LDC and GMP.
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.
CU-2009-AR-14137 Page 9 of 12
Revised: 5/20/09
approved conditional use for the church and the proposed expansion development intensity will
remain. There was no opposition from those in attendance; however the following comments
were expressed:
1. Would there be a connection road onto Autumn Oaks Lane, which the applicant answered
no; the church doesn't want to see a connector road so there is no plan to build one. The
representative of the Oakes Association stated they support the project as long as there is no
connection to Autumn Oaks Lane.
2. What would the traffic impact be with school buses dropping off children; the applicant
replied that there are no impacts based on the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) that was
submitted with the application. There will also be a turn lane added off of Immokalee
Boulevard onto the church parcel. It was also mentioned at this time, that the Classical
Academy of Naples will open August lO, 2009 fOl' the 2009-2010 Academic Year and will be
limited the first year to 20 students and the maximum lOO students.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attomey Office has reviewed the staff report for CU-2009-AR-l4137 revised on
5/20/09.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition CU-
2009-AR-14137, to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Conditional Use shall apply only the portion of the site that excludes the 0.91 acres
conservation easement to the east (less 80 feet of Tract 131).
2. The petitioner shall revise the legal description to exclude the south 30 feet of the site to
reflect a 5 acre site or, the Board of Zoning Appeals could determine that the past Board
knowingly approved the 1994 CU petition at 5.5 acres and found it consistent with the
GGAMP at that time, and dctermine that the present petition utilizing the same legal
description as in 1994 is also consistent with the GGAMP.
3. The applicant has agreed to phase the emollment of students by limiting attendance to a
maximum number of 20 new students during the first year of the project, and subsequent
years at 20 students until the six-lane capacity becomcs available on Imrnokalee Road.
4. Maximum emollment for the small private school shall be 100 students or 90 students for
the weekday child center.
5. The owner shall amend the Church's SDP to provide the required on-site preserves for a
5 acre site in order to he found consistent with the GMP and LDC or, the BZA could
determine that the past Board knowingly approved the 1994 CU petition with the 0.91
acres to the east (less 80 feet of Tract] 31) as an off-site preserve, and determine that the
present conditional use is also consistent with the GGAMP.
6. The applicant shall amend the site plan prior to the commencement of school to include
safe and adequate drop off and pickup area for the pre-kindergarten to 12th grade school
or child care center to ensure the safety of the children.
7. After-school programs are limited to the pre-kindergarten to l2th grade school functions
and registcr students only.
CU-2009-AR-14137 Page 11 of 12
ReVised: 5/20109
RESOLUTION NO. 09-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A
PRIVATE SCHOOL AND/OR DAY CARE RELATING TO THE
EXISTING RELIGIOUS FACILITY WITHIN THE ESTATES (E)
ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 2.03.01.B.1.C
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 28 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, 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 (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 a Conditional Use of a private school and/or a
day care related to the eXIsting religious facility within the Estates (E) Zoning District pursuant to
Subsection 2.03.01.B.1.c of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter
described, and the Collier County Planning CommIssion has made findings as described in Exhibit "A"
that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific
requirements governing the Conditional Use have been met and 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 pariies have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a
public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
6/- ~ -
NIl~99 S9~99
. ~ "l
, , , ! N !
F 'ot.... ..n".....
! , , r..... ".
, '''-01 'Uitl-/,
- - ! '''-"n,,,
,-<t-"'-L
"-~I ".
I ."....,,-
, , , , , , , , , .......,..,.."
.L; ,,,.........
. - <<:-+.,,-<
i "'-"."" ,,-,.
1 a , , , I I V ,.,-" .,.. ..-~
- , , , , ".~L_~
'. ~ - I - "....'..,,-
~ - . I - j , - II . . ! - - ./ , ....
,.~ I ! ;~ I
- - , , , , ~ , )I , t
'a
, ~ , , ! , , ~ , , ! /0 . ~ :
- g ,
. 1 . . 1 , , . 1 . I , V , . 0 ,
;- I
'~ ! ... / ^
, , x , .. , w , , , , 0
~ , , :::l , l . i
71. "
I , , , , , , , ,
!
. ! , , Ii . , ,~ ! I~' , .
. / I .1
, , , , , , , , ~ .
,
!" . I' ,
" , , , , , . , . . , , , , . !
. I
- / , t
. I
== !
o~"'^31noa 53"''0'0
. "ili/i- ~/ I I ~ l I -
--e- r -
, . I ' - I. N
.c' t <'. . V , , , , - - " " .=1
" ", "
/
l
'I
s
,
,
II; i
I.-<<".,,",j'
----------~3HlO---------8NINOZ :NOISI^3~ lSVl
ArrJ
~
.
/
~"r9g
sorge
',,:uno..J :l105DIO.OY~,D JO :lIJOlBJI.I flUIlDU61110p 9~Jn09 .(lunoJ
IDI::ltJJo 841 9JD gdol'j .llIIJ'IDqOJd IO::>!60I090YO-'V/O!.J019IH &41
w
Z
~
>
oc
~
a
z
~
o
00
w
z
o
N
o
Z
~
~
'"
~
u
o
~
I
I
I
~
m
~
Z
~
. ~ ~ (!i B
il: N"; ~ 0:: ~
~;~~~~i5
~ ~ j!,! ~ ~ >--
~~p;~
~~5~io
~ ~ 3 I ~
Hnd~
e · ~ : u
_iIN~
. '0
~ ~ I'
~
'"
N
W
'-'
'-'
.
" N
Z ;;;-
~ is
nil!
o .
> .
~ .
u ~ ..
l ~
OJ
l.
"I
;H
ijl
: , !
: , ~
IIi
'! h
Ie,
;11
Iii
!
I
!
w,..", "~......,,"
"'-'" "-'H"
'-/1:1 "_,_",,,
-",,,_U_,,,,
.'nol....."....,.
A"'no ....,',"."
..-.".."-.....,,
-r.'.Il;l....O'...,Ot
...,."..-,.....
"'fI:> ""0::-"':
.........u-".
,-"""-.,-,,,
-0._......._"
-'" .,,-It_.,
"-.j"'.~1;!~ ;
"""'"...,,
I,
LJ
I.
"
FINDINGS OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2009-AR-I4137
The following facts are found:
1. Section 10.08 of the Land Development Code authorizes 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 tire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Ycs No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glarc, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or __.. Affect mitigated by <tcxt>
___ 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)
(should not) be recommended for approval.
DATE:
CHAIRMAN:
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TRACT 130, TRACT 131 LESS THE EAST 80 FEET, AND THE EAST 165 FEET OF
TRACT 111, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT No. 97 F AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 7, PAGES 95 AND 96, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LESS THE NORTH 50 FEET THEREOF OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Exhibit B
--------------------
RESOLUTION 94--111
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
CONDITIONAL USE "1" IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING
DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.3.3 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 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 ousiness regulations as are necessary for
the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land
Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) 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 Collier County Planning Commission, 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 Use "1" of Section 2.2.3.3 in an "E" Estates zone
for church expansion on the property hereinafter described, and has
found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satiSfactory provision
and arrangement has been made concerning all applicable matters
required by said regulations and in accordance with SUbsection
2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County
Planning Commission; 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:
-1-
Attachment "D"
-(:-
's.J:eU01:SB1:1Il1I10;)
A+UnO~ ~O p.J:EOg eq+ Aq peAo.J:ddE eST~.J:a~o ssaIuh PanSST
a.J:E s+Tm.J:ed oUTPITnq am.+ eq+ +E PlEd aq TIEqs PUE 'papuamE BE
'55-58 eOUEu.p.J:Q uT q+.J:o~ +as SE aq IIEqs aa~ +oEdm. pEO.J: aq~ '0
'panssT
e.J:E AouEdnooo JO sa+EoT~T+.J:ao AUE a.J:oJaq aOEld uT aq IIEqs PUE
s+Tpa.J:o aa~ +oEdmT 0+ +oa~qns aq +ou ITEqs s+uamaAo.J:dmT ssaooV 'J
'a+.s aq+ BA.:tas 0+ A.:tESSaOau s+uamaAo.J:dmT uOT+oas.J:a+ul
TTE ~o +soo aq+ .J:o~ aTqTsuodsa.J: aq TTEqS .:tadoIaAap aq+
'PEO.:t aa1E~01ll1l11 JO OUTuET-.J:no~ aq+ uodn pa.J:.noa.:t aq ou.uado
uETpam E PTnoqs 'aoUE.J:+ue +oa~O.J:d aq+ +E pEO~ aaTE~01ll1l11
uo sauET u.J:n+ +qoT.J: PUE +JaT aPTAO.J:d TTEqs .J:adolaAap aq~ 'S
'uoT+oa.J:TP AT.J:e+sa~ E uT +asJ
OOT oUTpaaoo.J:d PUE .:ts~Jnq +oo~-Og aq+ JO A.J:Epunoq +sa~ aq+
+E OUT+.J:E+S qsn.J:q.:tapun aq+ .:tEaTO 0+ paMoTIE aq TIEqs .:tadoTaAap
aq+ aouePTsa.:t s,.:ta~E+a.:tEO aq+ ~o +uo.:tJ uT +daoxa 'aUTT
A+.J:ado.J:d u.J:aq+nos aq+ OUOTE .J:aJJnq pa+E+aoaA ATTE.J:n+Eu ap1:~
+OO~ (GS) aATJ-A+JTJ E +sEaT +E uTE+a.J: TTEqS .:tauOT+T+ad aq~ 'P
'pa.J:TnDa.:t JT TEAO.J:ddv dOS TEUT~ .J:oJ pa++Tmqns aq TTEqS +Tm.:tad
TEnPTATPuT UV 'sa.J:n+o~+s TET+uaPTsa.J: 0+ ATUO saTTddE Ea.:tE
sTq+ .J:OJ 8~-EVS +Tm.:tad TE.J:sua~ s.:taauToua JO sd.:to;) Am.:tV 'S 'n '0
'UETd .J:S+SEW eq+ uo
u~oqs SE .:ta~Jnq adEospuET pe+E+aoaA TE.J:n+Eu E SE A+Tn+ad.:tad uT
padoTaAapun UTEma.:t TTEqS TCT +OE.:t~ JO +aaJ 08 +sEa a.:tT+ua aq~ 'q
. ((:01-16 'ON aOUEuTP.J:O) apo;)
+uamdoTaAaa pUE~ A+unoo .J:aTTTO;) aq+ JO 'TEhO.:tddE PUE ~aTha~
UETd +uamdOTahao a+TS 'C'C UOTSThTO oUTpnToUT 'TE++Tmqns
JO emT+ aq+ +E +oaJJa uT saouEUTP.J:o A+unO;) aIqEoTTddE
TTE q+TM ATdmoo TTEqS PUE 'UOT+EOTIddE asn IEUOT+TPUOO
Mau E JO TE++.mqns aq+ a.J:lnoa.J: TTEqs 'UOT4EO.lddE sT~ JO +.J:Ed
SE pa++Tmqns UETd a+Ts a~ 0+ saouEqo .:tO~Em .:to 'UOl+EOlTddE
asn IEUOT+TPUOO sTq+ uTq+T~ paho.:tddE PUE paTJT+uaPT sasn aq+
JO UOTSUEdxa 'asn IEUOT+.puoo eq+ Aq paz..J:oq+nE s+uamaho.J:dmT
PUE 'se.:tn+on.:t+s 'souTPTTnq JO +qoTaq .:to 'oUT+TS 'UOT+EOOT
aq+ uT saoUEqo .J:ouTm aAo.J:ddE AEm .:taoEUEW OUTUUETd +ua.J:.J:no aq~ '8
: SUOT+ TPuOO flUT~oTToJ eq+ 0+ +oa ~qns PUE (";),,
+TqTqxa) UETd .:ta+SEW TEn+deouo;) aq+ q+TM aouEp.:toOOE uT UOTsuEdxa
qO.J:nqo .J:OJ +oT.J:+sTP flUTuOZ sa+E+Sa "a" aq+ JO C' C' <::. <:: u01'+oas
JO 111" asn TEuoT+TPuoo .J:oJ paho.J:ddE Aqa.J:eq sT aures aq+ PUE aq
upl.J:aq aoua.:ta~a.J:
Aq pa+E.J:od.J:ooUT PUE o+a.J:aq pSqoE++E sT qOTqM IIErU :nqTqxa
'SE paqT.J:osap .J:a+JEuTa.J:aq A+.J:ado.J:d aq+ 0+ +oadsa.J:
q+TM 'qo.J:nq;) TEdoosTda s,EoTuoW '+S oUT+uasa.J:da.J: 'sa+EToossv
PUE uaa.:t~ aon.:tH JO aTdda~ '~ aOUE.:t.:ta~ Aq paTTJ uOl+T+ad aq~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the
minutes of this Board.
Commissioner
Saundecs
offered the foregoing
Resolution and moved for its adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Noccis
and upon roll call, the vote was:
NAYS:
AYES: Commissionec Saundecs, Commissionec Noccis, Commissionec volpe,
Commissionec Matthews, and Commissionec Constantine
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING:
ABSTENTION:
Done this
27th
day of Septembec
, 1994.
... j
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
~'~#A/M7~G)~.
Z r
~. ~OVED AS ~ci-:~ORM AND
LEGAl:, "SUFFICIENCY:
fw.
CHAIRMAN
'ID~~~J f1~6"./ ~.d
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
CU-94-12 RESOLUTION/12132
-3-
--.......
"v" :nQ1llxg
pm/~IVH~ ~~V~ ~o ~NlaNI~
~. (jm7~, :lM-ffiIVH:) I>b/I;~ :a<Lva
, T~AO~dd~ ~O~ papuammo~a~
~ (~OU PTnoqs) (paq~E++~ Xdo~) 'SUoL+~TndL+S q+L~
~TnOq~~Sn T~uo1+1puo~ s,q+ 'souTPu,~ aAoq~ aq+ UO pas~g
oN ~ sax
+~,~+s,p u,q+}M'asn'aTq,~~dmoo
:+~1~~S,P aq+ u, X~ado~d ~aq+o
pu~ sa,+~ado~d +ua~~~p~ q+,~ X+,T,q,+~dmo:) 'a
pa+Eo,+,m aq +OUUE~ +~aJJV .
Xq pa+ED1+,m +~aJJV ~o +~aJJE~N
:s+~aJJa ~opo ~o ~Tmouooa 'a~~To aSLOU
0+ u01+ETa~ u1 sa~+~ado~d DU1~oqqo,a s+~ajJV ':)
ON ~ .sax
ssa~oa~sa~ou, a+~nDapv
:aqdo~+sE+E~ ~o a~1J
JO aSE~ u1 ssa~~E PUE 'To~+uo~ PUE ~oTJ ~,JJ~~+
'a~ua,uaAuo~ PUE X+aJ~s uE,~+sapad PUE aA1+omo+n~
0+ a~ua~aJa~ ~~Tn~,+~~d q+,~ uoa~aq+ sa~n+o~+s~
pasodo~d pu~ X+~ado~d 0+ ssa~oa pu~ ssa~uI 'g
ON ./'l Sax
:U~T~+uamaD~u~H ~o~~
pu~ apo:) +uamdoTaAaa pUE~ aq+ ~1~ Xoua+s,suo:) 'V
:JO asn~~aq
pooq~oqqo1au ~o +o,~+s1P am~s aq+ u, sasn ~o X+~ado~d
~aq+o +~aJJ~ XTas~aAp~ +ou TT,~ PUE +sa~a+u, o,Tqnd aq+
+oaJJ~ XTas~aAp~ +ou TT,~ asn TEUO,+TPuOO aq+ Du,+uE~~ 'Z
'asn T~uo,+,puo~ aq+ paz,~oq+nE apo:)
+uamdo'[Aaa p='1 aq+ JO T . ~ . ~ ' Z . z uo,+oas ' 1:
:punoJ a~~ s+o~J OU,~OTTOJ aq<L
ZI-'l6-DJ
~O.o:
NOI<LI<Lad asn ~NOI<LlaNO:) V
l:tO.o:
NOISSIWNO:) ~NI~d X<LNnO~ ~aI'1'10:)
Xfl
<L:)V.o: ao ::lNIQNI.l:
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-94-12
The following facts are found:
1. Section 2.2.3.3.1 of the Land Development
Code authorized the conditio~al use.
2. Granting the conditional uSe will not adversely affect
the pUblic interest and will not adversely affect. other
property or uses in the Bame distr~ct or neighborhood
because of:
A.
Consistency with the La~evelopment 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 ingr~~ egress
Yes No
C.
Aff~cts eighboring properties in relation to
nois , glare, economic or odor effects:
No ~ffect or Affect mitigated by
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and
other property in the district:
Compatible Use within district
Yes I / No
,
Based on the above findings, this co onal Use should,
with stipUlations, (copy attaChed) should not) be .
recommended for approval
DATE, , J ' ! 1'{ HEMS"'; ~ /4 i0!;
FINDING OF FACT MEMbER/md
,
......
~r (~.,
.....
Tract 130, 131, and the East 165 feet of Tract 111,
Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 97 less the North 50
feet of Tracts 130, 131 and the East 165 feet of
Tract 111, Less the East 80 feet of Tract 131, as
recorded in Plat BOOK 7, Pages 95 and 96, of the
Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
Exhibit "B"
oJ" ~Iq"P.l.x:r
I I
I I
I I
! II!
I I
I I
I ,
III
I I'
: I
I, I
: I:
I I
, I
t I
: II
I I
I I
I I
II' :
I I
I I
I I
.: ':
! I,
, I'
'_ t
III'
:1 :
: II
III :
,~ I
I t
I ,
:,1 :
I I
I
I
I I I
: II
I :
I
I
\
....-----
r--T-
, ,
I I
I I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
,
t
,
---------
--- ----,
I
I
,
I
-.-.
h
tl
II
~
:.-::
: ::: :..: - .:--
amHlIB. .,
..... '. '.
"::::: ::. :.
0i#tt1DR)..
. ,. ..
.::..
"
I ,I
!~
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
, ~
V
~--
::. .:..:
-=0
= ~
/
I
I
h
;~
.
~H
-l,
!Jl;;
,!~;
""'!
1-;3,
'I
i dh
I ~iol
l- ~j~l
-d!
13.1
I... to ~
Illl lIlp
1
II I
! I) jilll'
If:!!:/: :
II J I I
1,1
IJilll
... lllll'll
1.111
~i
~.
gl
")
'I'
I I
, I
iii - ~
, I . ,
I - i
I
III
I
II:
I I c
1,1 ~
'I: ii:
I I ~
t, Vi
It
Ii: ,1,1
I'
t ,
I I
T
I' Ii-
I I
I I ~
',I
Iii
, I I.
I,
, I
i'l .
I I ~' ,!
,"I
i It
I I
:r i
I'
I I i
' I
I,'
II: i
I I
I' .
.
:,: I"
'I' ~
I t
, I
! HII
It: I[l
I ~ I i1d
f.1 f 1IJ
,
I'~
:.1
I I
I
! !
II I~
l
g
,
.
,
i
I
"
I
i
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 5
-.
~
q~~~~
I niC)
~.
l ~ Cl
i ,~~ r;:
~ ;~ ~ 6
! i.' ><
" "~~
~ i . ~ ~
~ ! '";:I 0 ;:;0
6 ,~~
~: 1~~Ro
~ ~ ~~ ~ E;;
"! ~
S ." <Zl
, .0
, !\:n
! i~;; r
~ I;t;! ~ ~
l!~~ t;j
! ~Y'
,,' 5 ""0
j J 9?>
t.o
,...
~
;:l
0 0>.
< "
01 " .
;u
> '"
r ~
r
~
iT! ~.
"
-0 {l
r
> 1:.
z
C")
~
"
;>-
'>~n .
~!>I!' ""
i"~~i! .. r-
~A"
,n
! .
~ >
! In! H 1~
o ~ , >', .'
.., ;;l Sl ~ ~
~;r-
~'c (
o
>-
:::t
~
S
(1l
Ol
~
t1J
'. '-' ~
. . . ,
, . .
.EXliITINGo05',
-.='".-
OEUNl1GNAlI(A
,PER ~U-O#_I:l.
~N.
, , , '~~' fl,"" .
. , . . 2~
, ' , ' , ' , ~rn
. , . ,;3;!
, . , 'Oil
, ' , ' , ' , ~g:
,', .... "Q
~
. .. (")
;;
~l,
~!~
~ l__
... ,.
~i:~~r
O(TENTlOfj'~U,
-p~ t~"o"g,''-':l
. 0( ,___'
~I'
:- 6 !.
'l .
! I
i
. .. .
',...'...' ~I....
:-, "~i" '
" ". ','.
',' ':l! ","
}i~ "
I
i
~~
~z
~~z
8zR
<Om
gJfil~
f8ii1
~r
I "". I
-Ti\K'NGj
I
,
"
"
,
'"
["
(- .--
j---
f'
(llJj11U-'-I_~
\JTTUTITiTUJ
1
,'I
I
.I
II
II
I,
, III
I!
'Q!::1 ~F
B~ ~;g
=to f;1!i!
'. .
@~ ~~
~3! QQ
)o~ ~g
~~ "0
!i 'Z~
"~ ~~
~q~
~:t -
~!il ~~
"
~~
""
~~
~~
~~
~~
""
~~
:;;:F
.0
"~
~~
mo
".
~~
i~
~"
"q
~
p ""';-J CI f1' .jo.
~5! :t ::i! :t 5'!
;g", Vi u; Vi ;:;;
o~ "'0 III !<l l1l
~~ ~ ~ : :
ii1~ ~ ~ z z
!!tl ~ z ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.~. ~ ~ ~ il
?5~ ~ ~ z z
~~ ~ ~ g ;
~g ~ 5! li ~
~!i ~ ~ ~
~ N ~
)> ~ ~ z
~ ~ jf:
C:" ;'l
8
~ ~~
" ~"
\2 ~~
~ 2'" '"
;a iIi~ 8
~ ~~ tl
=< "':I! ;!::
~ R~ 0
l1l ~I::j .......
. 0 ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~;
~ o;! r;I
~ ~ ~
~ ~
"
i'!
,
"
~
.
>
z
,
~
~
,
Iii~
ro~
~
S~
rnm
5~ . Z -
~~
~ ,
<.H f" ,... G1
01
~ ~ ~
~ . ;U
" < >
~ ~ r
!:! Vi z
~ ~ ~
~ ~ (f)
, ^
5 2
~ ~
, ~
~ ,.
~ ~
. ~
~ "
~
,.
~
~
"
, ~~
"
~ Ci;jl
IJ 2~
~ "g
e~
iJ o~
, ~g
2 o.
0 ~il
"
~ ~.
, ~~
~
" .::j;'l
~ 88
~ "N
~
~ x
2 2
1; >
5
2
~ 0
2
0
N m
. .
~
"
8
~
<
"
C
;0
..
~
"
BGI\
ENGINEERS. LAND SURVEYORS
ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
June 14, 1994
St. Monica's is located on Irnmokalee Road approximately one
half mile east of Oaks Boulevard and adjacent to the existing
fire station. A conditional use was granted for Tract 130
and the East 165 feet of Tract 111 in 1991 (Resolution
91-14). The Church has commenced construction in accordance
with that conditional use and expect to complete their first
phase this fall (1994).
St. Monica's long range plans call for a 500 seat church,
administrative offices, Sunday School classrooms, etc. These
uses were shown on the original conditional use. To
accomodate these uses, however, it was necessary for the
church to acqu ire add i tional property for park ing . They
acquired the adjacent tract (Tract 131) in July 1993 and now
wish to secure a conditional use for the property.
St. Monica's has already deeded, to Collier County, fifty
(50) feet of add i tional R/W along Immok alee Road from Trac t
130, 131 and East 165 feet of Tract 111, as required by the
original conditional use. This area was a total of 0.947
acres. In addition, 0.568 acres of their property consists
of R/W for 24th Avenue N.W.
Of the total 7.041 acres purchased by St. Monica's, only
5.526 acres remain after the R/W is removed. The County's
master plan for Golden Gate Estates allows only a maximum of
five (5) acres be developed under a conditional use. The
church is willing to reserve the east 80 feet of Tract 131 as
a buffer/open space through this conditional use process or
as an additional deed restriction to maintain their use on
five acres or less. In addition, the 55 foot buffer along
their south property line (Tracts III and 130) uses 0.625
acres, leaving 4.375 acres for the church out of their
original 7.041 acres (62%).
Attachment "F"
BRUCE GREEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
3806 EXCHANGE AVENUE. NAPLES, FLORIDA 33942-3778 . (813) 262-7525
FAX (813) 262-6231
ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Page - 2
EIS - Waiver
The additional Tract (131) is 2.36 acres in size and has
upland slash pine, understory and exotics. Of this portion,
0.9 acres will remain as buffer: 80 feet east and 55 feet
south. The remainder of the site will be used for a
caretakers home, play/picnic area and church parking. The
existing trees will be utilized as much as possible and the
buffer areas will be cleared of exotics. The petitioner is
requesting an EIS waiver on this project.
TIS
The original conditional use (Resolution 91-14) anticipated a
500 seat church and the associated traffic. This proposal
only provides the required parking for the use previously
approved and will not generate additional traffic.
".
~
' .
'-.',..
. ~-".'
:y...-.:""-'
_.-~:
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC.
ARTICLE VII
The names of the officers who are to manage all the affairs
of the corporation, until the next appointment or first election
under these Articles of Incorporation, are:
Vicar:
John S. Adle=
5910 14th St=eet NW
Naples, FL 33999
. -" Senior Warden:
Dean R. Lind
1930 Princess Court
Naples, FL 33942
Junior Warden:
Charles E. Decker
11638 Quail Village Way
Naples, FL 33999
Clerk:
Nancy Helring
282 Mentor Drive
Naples, FL 33942
Treasurer:
Wayne Stickney
9753 Campbell Circle
, N':.l'p~.es, FL 33942
~=.,
~?~;;.';~~O:~ "",
ARTICLE VIII
The by-laws of the corporation
inconsistent with the canons aforesaid nor
(which must not
with the Articles
be
of
Incorporation) are to be made, altered, or rescinded by the
Vestry Committee or Vestry.
ARTICLE IX
No grant shall be made nor shall any charge be imposed upon
any consecrated church or chapel, Or any church or chapel which
, nas" , been used solely for divine service belonging to the
"':;"~;:.....-......, .-....
co oration,:. except by the consent of a majority of the whole
or. A__ ~
e'stry"Comm'ittee or Vestry at any regular or specia~ meeting, nor
wi thout the consent of the Bishop acting with the advice and
consent ::)".L: the St3..ndinl'T r..........,-......'-+-___ _.C .,
PETITION NUMBER
P'f
". ^
'.,.,. ~
,;-, /1'
j ~= 1.
,), ,allill
."d""fll
[;p]
DATE
~Q
_~V
....""
~'~"'"
--" .
t,' ' ,-\;-? ' ~
<'1.<' ,,~ S
'<""7 . \ \ ..:;.\0t;
\"0\\ C<{.'f'
_CO
,\~0
~'
\"-"
'(\..
\,
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING
FOR
REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE REOUESTS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REOUESTS
COMMm,ITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
CURRENT PLANNING
1.
Name of Applicant(s)
St. Monica's
Episcopal
Church
Applicant's ~ailing Address 4500 Executive Drive
Naples
state
?lorida
Zip
33999
City
Applicant's Telephone Number: Res.:
Bus.: 59 I - 2 6 9 5
Is the applicant the owner of the subject property?
x Yes No
(a) If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name
beneficiaries below.
~ (b) If applicant is corporation other than a public
corporation, so indicate and name officers and major
stockholders below.
(c) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership
or other business entity, so indicate and name
principals below.
(d) If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as
recorded, and list all other owners, if any.
(el If applicant is a lessee, attach copy of lease, and
indicate actual owners if not indicated on the lease.
(f) If applicant is a contract purchaser, attach copy of
contract, and indicate actual owner(s) name and address
below.
( , / ' , ')
C;r:--~ Z t'''-jTri?;/ ,."'4r-:'";r/
(If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.)
2.
Name of Agen~ Terrance L. Kepple
Firm BRUCE GREEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Agents Mailing Address 3806 Exchange Avenue
Naples
state
Florida
Zip
33942
city
Telephone Number: Res.:
Bus. :
(813)262-7525
1
3. DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE
APPLICATIOn ,== space is inadequate, attach on separate page.
If request in'Jolves change to more than one zoning district,
include separate legal description for property involved in
each district. If property is odd-shaped, submit copies of
survey (1" to 400' scale).
THE APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION.
AN ENGINEER'S
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING THE CORRECT LEGAL
IF QUESTIONS ARISE CONCERNING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION,
CERTI?ICATION SHALL BE REQUIRED.
SECTION
29
TOWNSHIP
68
RANGE
26
Tract 130, 131, and the East 165 feet of Tract 111,
Golden Gate
Estates, Unit No. 97 less the North 50 feet of Tracts 130, 131
and the East 165 feet of Tract II], Less the East 80 feet of Tract
] 3 1 .
4.
Size of property
J..-J"
7~/4
ft. X
ft.
Acres
5. Address or location of subject property Immokalee Road,
1/4 mile east of Oaks Blvd.
6.
Existing land elevation
Elevation Zone X
17 --; 7
. ~,/. ~ County Flood criteria
7.
a.
Date subject prope~ty
1-; day of .ITU/v
Term of lease .
acquired (Y)
19 '1-:;
~
yrs ./mos.
or leased ( )
b. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of
option: and date option terminates:
8. Does property owner own contiguous property to the subject
property? If so, give complete legal description of entire
contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on
separate page) . Yes - The East 80 feet of Tract
131, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 97
9. THIS APPLICATION IS INTENDED TO COVER: (Check which type of
petition your are requesting) :
A. REZONING: PRESENT ZONING
FOR
REQUESTED ZONING
x
B.
CONDITIONAL USE
OF
E
ZONING FOR Church
2
10.
REASON '"HY ?PPLICATION SHOULD BE ."PPROVED (Attach additional
sheets if :ieC2ssary): The exist 109 Church' proper:y ~s too
small to accomodate outside facilities and parking for the
parishioners.
11. IS PROPOSED USE PROHIBITED BY DEED RESTRICTIONS?
Yes X No
IF YES, PROVIDE COPY OF THE DEED RESTICTIONS.
12 .
IS THIS REQUEST A RESULT OF A VIOLATION?
WHOM WAS THE NOTICE SERVED?
No
IF SO, TO
13. HAS A PUBLIC HEARING BEEN HELD ON THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE
LAST YEAR? IF SO, IN WHOSE NAME? No
14.
ARE THERE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY? Yes
CBS X FRP~E , MOBILE HOME , OTHER
TYPE:
AFFIDAVIT
I W~, Charles E. Decker being first duly sworn,
depose and say that I am are the owners of the property described
herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing;
that all the answers to the questions in this application, and all
sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and
made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best
of our knowledge and belief. I understand this application must
be completed and accurate before a hearing can be advertised. I
further permit the undersigned to act as our representative in any
matters regarding this Petition.
....
/
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
State of Florida
County of Collier
The foregoing Application was acknowledged before m,e this
"'Charles E. Decker &
14th day of June , 1994 bYTe"r,,"~g 1 Kg 10 ' who
lS personally known to me ~~ ~~X~~gXp~~M>>~~~ pp
~X~~~ZXX~aXl~fiXand who ~ (did not)
take an oath.
.......f
...~...~.. OFFICIAL SEAL
:" ~ \ ELIZABETH A. METTS
SEA:q ; My Commission Expires
......... .: April 13, 1996
.-' ~,4"
..~OFf19",.." Comm. No. CC 186891
..w..".'
, '
C~~~/ /I, '>>r~
(sigjY1ture of No~ary Public)
Elizabeth A. Metts
(Print Name of Notary Public)
NOTARY PUBLIC
Serial/Commission f# CC 18689 I
My commission Expires: 4/13/96
REZONE/CU APPLICATION/md/7/27/92
3
AGENDA ITEM 9~
""~':;i;;~
/'("t~
CQlJler County
-"";::J<J;'t".;>'>'4'}:::'::;;'%-'?5::;<(:::::z.:;;:..r_~::::r,:;.,~::,:.;.-~
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAl'-.JD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: JUNE 4, 2009
SUBJECT: RZ-2008-AR-13967, MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK (COMPANION TO V A-2008-
AR-13671)
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner:
Collier County Parks and
Recreation Department
15000 Livingston Road
Naplcs, FL 34109
Agent:
Heidi Williams, AICP
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
3800 Via del Ray
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone 2.62
acres of land from the Residential Single-Family (RSF-4), Village Residential (VR) and Goodland
Zoning Overlay (GZO) zoning districts to the Public Use (P) zoning district for a waterfront
conununity park.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the north side of Pear Tree Avenue; west of Goodland Drive East;
east of Papaya Street and Goodland Bay; and south of Pettit Drive and Goodland Bay, in Section 18,
Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Goodland, Collier County, Florida (see location map on the
following page).
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The applicants propose to rezone the 15 subject parcels for a waterfront conununity park
notwithstanding the fact that the use is already permitted as a Conditional Use in the aforementioned
zoning districts. The basis for the rezone is that the properties were deeded to the County by the
RZ-200B.AR-12930
May 12, 2009
Page 1 of 12
I
,
!/~
v
/'___
-7----.J
, I
/ I
~ /
o 0
w- ~N I ,i I I
f:::: I;;: 1\ CJ ':,_J ! J_ _,'_J _
U) g ~ \ _~_~-~_]C'il ~:;v;CCn~)~
~ J ,y /C-', " ,"
y-> _c-' I :1"-
v,'. /, " , .
l'I'li-iin'
I 'I' I' ','
11/[-:, , I ,'I
,.:.:1/_._<1 ;-'l
I ,.g, n'
:.----.:.--,---,
T ,%<
-~I I '
r.::-
H
L:=:=J I
,_, i:..j
'':''J I-i
0;1-1 ~Lrc g..:j
J ~r-I
__-I L ~;HO
_i H~L:J~r
l~cl_J '\
'-'TO:
'=- \ ----j>;
1------1 I
I " i
~--"I !
i----<,
~}-~ B
1
_. I
!----:-i------<'II~-'"I;---
I "d ..
I , I -!,
11;--;-;: ~
I iO'I"
-- -;-
--
..
~
~
o
i
.'
o
9,
-,
''"~S OJ lO" /
-
'E-
r---------_
\
I
<
"
~!
<'
~z
00
w-
~.,
00
g:g
51
~ I
/
0...
~
:2:
c.9
Z
Z
o
N
...
~i
"'I
<(
d,i
~I
"
~!
"
~I
H
H
w,
0.1
0...
~
:2:
z
o
I-
~
o
o
-l
~~D DRIVE EAST-
-r--
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u. -f - \
jl'L---l_J
\"I!! 1'\
1\ .,
. l.-_Ji ...J
J II~J \~ II
~~S VAVd;; - ~5 \
--=-~ \ \W
;' .l,\i
~~
,
,
i
--*---
n
h !I __
II
~
<D
D
Z
:'i
D
o
o
"
,
!
i
!
o
~
~
.
~
H
~
~
~
. Z
,
I
i
,
"
n
,
e~
I
i
i
"
U
II
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
~~
m
~.-
-
.~
~""""-
~-
CDJoo--oHBn
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES P A
ClVlLENGfNEERS.LANDSURVEYORS.PLANNEXSWLANtlSCAPEA~CH~
~~:,~ . == . ':e,~"';:.r
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE
WWW.GRADYMlNOR.COM
SHEET 1 OF 1
Florida Communities Trust, which stipulated in their grant that the properties be rczoned to the P
zoning district as a way to ensure their continual use for solely public purposes.
As depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan entitled, "Mar-Good Harbor Park," prepared by Q, Grady
Minor & Associates, P.A. and dated August 2008 (submitted for this item's companion Variance
application, VA-2008-AR-13671), the proposed park would provide pedestrian pathways for passive
recreational use adjacent to Goodland Bay. These pathways would afford pedestrian access from
Papaya Street to the west, Pettit Drive to the east, and Pear Tree A venue to the south, providing users
of the park with interconnections to two piers, a playground, volleyball court, bocce ball court, picnic
area, a canoe/kayak launch, various overhead shelter areas, an "interpretive center" (i.e. museum and
educational ccnter) and several other buildings situated across Pettit Drive, which are eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places and have been recommended for historic designation
by the County's Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board (HAPB) (see the
"Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board (HAP B) Recommendation" portion of this report on
page nine). The park facility would also be accessible by vehicle from two access points on Pear Tree
Avenue, where a 20-space parking lot would be provided. Along the park's perimeter, various buffers
and transitional screening would bc required to maintain compatibility with the surrounding
residential uses. (These buffers are the subject of the landscape Variance, whose details are elaborated
in the companion application).
Aerial Photo of Subject Properties
Mar-Good Harbor Park, RZ-2008-AR-13967
Page 2 of 12
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-family homes with an RSF-4, VR and GZO zoning designation; and Goodland Bay
Single-family homes with an RSF-4 and GZO zoning designation; and Pear Tree Avenue
Single family homes with an RSF-4, VR and GZO zoning designation
Single-family homes with an RSF-4, VR and GZO zoning designation
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Conservation on the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) of lhe GMP and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The
purpose of this designation is to conserve and maintain the natural resources of Collier County for
their associated environmental, recreational and economic benefits. Relevant to this petition, the
Conservation designation permits non-residential uses, including parks, open space and recreational
areas, and allows water-dependent and water-related uses such as the rcquested fishing pier, boating
pier, and canoe launch.
In order to promote Smart Growth policies, and adhere to the eXlstmg development character of
Collier County, the following policies (in italicized font) shall be implemented for new development
and redevelopment projects, where applicable (staU"s comments are shown in bold font):
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. As depicted on the conceptual
site plan, the subject site does not abut a coIlector or arterial roads.
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 to minimize the need for traffic signals. As
depicted on the conceptual site plan, the project provides automobile traffic with entrances on
Pear Tree Avenue. Pedestrian and bicycle users have access to the park via several pathways.
Due to the property's smaIl size, internal accesses or loop roads are not feasible.
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. As depicted on the conceptual site plan, the project provides multiple pedestrian
connections to the adjacent local streets and one possible pedestrian connection to an adjacent
property. Given the nature of the abutting single-family lots, it is not appropriate, and may not
even be possible, to provide vehicular interconnections.
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, As depicted
Mar-Good Harbor Park, RZ-2008-AR.13967
Page 3 of 12
on the conceptual site plan, there are proposed trails and pedestrian accesses for residents living
near the site.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding
land uses, as set forth in the LDC. It is the responsibility of the Zoning and Land Development
Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform this compatibility analysis.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposal may be deemed consistent with the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE),
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Objective 10.2 of the CCME states,
"The County shall continue to insure that access to beaches, shores and waterways remain [sic)
available to the public and continue with its program to expand the availability of such access and a
method to fund its acquisition. " The County's rezoning of the subject parcels for Mar Good
Harbor Park furthers this policy.
CCME Policy 12.2.7 states, "The County shall continue to assess all undeveloped property within the
coastal high hazard area and make recommendations on appropriate land use. " The subject petition,
which proposes P zoning for a park for mostly undeveloped properties, would remove potential
single-family residential units from the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) while enhancing the
community's access to water-related recreational uses and non-motorized launching facilities.
Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE): Objective 1.3 states "Continue to ensure that all
public developed recreational facilities, open space and beaches and public water bodies are
accessible to the general public, .. The proposed rezoning would provide a new park facility for
the Goodland community and its visitors.
ROSE Policy 1.3.1 states, "County-owned or ~managed parks and recreation facilities shall have
automobile, bicycle and/or pedestrian access, where the location is appropriate and where such access
is economically feasible, " As stated, the proposed parking lot would provide pedestrian access and
a total of 20 parking spaces for vehicles. (Comprehensive Planning leaves the determination as to
the appropriateness of the location of these facilities to the Zoning and Land Development Review
staff as part of their review of this petition.)
ROSE Objective 1.6 states, "Whenever possible and practical, utilize County-owned property for
recreational uses. " As previously noted, Collier County owns the lots that are the subject of this
rezoning petition, which is proposing a recreational use.
FLUE Policy 5.4 states, "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to,
surrounding uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code, " Comprehensive Planning leaves this
compatibility determination to the Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their
review of this petition.
Transportation Element: The Transportation Planning Department considers this petItIOn to be
consistent with Transportation Element Policies 5.1 and 5.2., as the proposed rezone from residential
to the P zoning district for a community park would dramatically decrease the number of daily trips on
Mar-Good Harbor Park, RZ-2008-AR-13967
Page 4 of 12
the roadway network. As noted in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) attached as Appendix I, the trip
estimates show that rezoning from the RSF-4, VR and GZO zoning districts to the P zoning district
would eliminate potential single-family trips, resulting in a net decrease of traffic from 158 average
weekday trips to just six average weekday trips.
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff concludes this petition may be deemed
consistent with the FLUE of the GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon
which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection I 0.02.l3.B.5, Planning
Commission Recommendation, and Subsection 1O.03.05.H, Planning Commission Hearing and Report
to the Board of County Commissioners, which establish the legal bases to support the CCPe's
recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the
BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation
relative to LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report, is
discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition,
staff offers the following:
Environmental: This petitioner was not required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS)
nor was a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) required because the
subject parcels had been previously developed and/or cleared.
Transportation Planning: Transportation Planning Department staff has determined that the proposed
Rezone would not adversely the site's access or require additional right-of-way.
Public Utilities: The Public Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and noted that
according to the current 2008 Water Master Plan Update, the project is within the County Water
District Service Area. There is an existing six-inch water main on Pear Tree Avenue. Sewer would be
provided by the City of Marco Island. At the time of SOP, the project would be subject to the
conditions associated with a Water Availability Letter from the Collier County Public Utilities
Division. When this project reaches the SOP stage, a letter from the City of Marco Island utility
system stating the available capacity would have to be submitted to the County's Community
Development and Engineering Services Department.
Zoning and Land Development Analvsis: As described in LDC Section 2.03.04.A, the purpose and
intent of the P zoning district is, "to accommodate only local, state or federally owned (or leased) and
operated government facilities that provide essential government services, The P district is intended to
facilitate the coordination of urban services and land uses while minimizing the potential disruption of
the uses of nearby properties. " Such essential government services, as defined by the LDC, include
public parks. As such, the proposed waterfront park, with the conditions of approval recommended by
staff (contained in the "Staff Recommendation" portion of this report), would satisfy the objective of
this zoning district.
Mar-Good Harbor Park, RZ-200B-AR-13967
Page 5 of 12
LOC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners... shall show that
the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following
when applicable (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan.
As noted in the "GMP Consistency" portion of this report, the proposed park would
further the goals and objectives of the FLUE and the applicable portions of the CCME
and the ROSE (Recreation and Open Space Element). In particular, it would remove
potential single-family residential development from the Coastal High Hazard Area
(CHHA) and replace it with a park for recreational uses.
2, The existing land use pattern.
As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the
neighborhood's existing land use pattern is characterized by single-family residences and
vacant lots. A waterfront community park would be compatible among the residential
uses of this historically water-dependent community.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts
The subject rezoning would indeed create an isolated P zoning district within a
neighborhood that is zoned RSF-4, VR and GZO. However, being a public park, the
proposed use, as previously noted, is considered to be an appropriate Conditional Use by
the LDC in these zoning districts with mitigation to assuage potential impacts. It is only
due to the Florida Communities Trust's grant requirement that the property be rezoned
to the P district (to ensure that the land remains in use for a public purpose) that the
applicants are pursuing a Rezone rather than Conditional Use approval. Furthermore,
staff has restricted the P zoning district uses on the site to park and recreational service
facilities, education facilities, museums and libraries in order to ensure compatibility with
the adjacent areas.
4, Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on
the property proposed for change,
As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the existing district
boundaries are logically drawn. However, the proposed rezoning would take advantage of
the area's waterfront and mostly vacant lots (or lots occupied by disused historic
structures) in order to create a waterside park for the recreational benefit of the
community.
5, Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
Mar.Good Harbor Park, RZ-200B-AR-13967
Page 6 of 12
Changing conditions in the neighborhood justify a community park. However, as noted,
the applicants are only pursuing this Rezone instead of a Conditional Use since, when the
properties were deeded to the applicants in 2005, the land grantor required that the
property be rezoned to the P district as a way to secure its long-term use for strictly
public purposes, such as historic preservation and education, as well as the conservation
of open space for recreational purposes.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood
Staff believes that the proposed change would have a favorable influence on living
conditions in the neighborhood by providing residents with a recreational amenity within
walking distance from their homes. The applicants have worked closely with the residents
in the planning of the facility to make certain that it would satisfy their recreational needs
and complement the residential character of the area.
7, Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses. because of peak volumes or
projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety.
As described in the TIS, the proposal would actually reduce the potential number of trips
that might be generated if the neighborhood were to develop according to its existing
residential zoning, as compared to the proposed P zoning, since most users of the park
would be pedestrians. Because many of the potential users of the park would be
(pedestrians and) bicyclists, staff has included a condition of approval requiring the
provision of at least one bicycle rack on the site.
8, Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem,
Appropriate stormwater management would be required at the time of site development
plan (SDP) approval. In addition, the vast majority of the site would remain as open
space. Therefore, no drainage issues would be anticipated.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas,
Since most of the existing open area would be retained as open space, neither air nor light
would be reduced.
10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.
This is a subjective determination affected by a host of circumstances other than zoning,
especially market conditions. Nevertheless, the applicant maintains that the park would
be considered an amenity and, therefore, would not adversely affect surrounding
property values.
Mar-Good Harbo' Park, RZ-2008-AR-13967
Page 7 of 12
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations,
Most of the adjacent properties are already developed with residential uses. Therefore,
the proposal would not deter the improvement of adjacent property in a manner
consistent with existing regulations. According to the applicants, the use is rather
expected to serve as a catalyst to further investment in the area.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare,
This petition is being made by the County's Parks and Recreation Department.
Therefore, if approved, no individual owner would be granted a special privilege; rather
the change would benefit the Goodland community and county residents at large.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning.
As already noted, the property could be used for a park without any zoning change
through the Conditional Use process. However, the terms of the land grant as dictated by
Florida Communities Trust requires that the land be rezoned to the P zoning district as a
way of safeguarding its continual use for the public's benefit.
14, Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county,
Staff believes that the proposed community park would not be out of scale with the needs
of the neighborhood since consideration was not given for such a recreational amenity at
the time of the neighborhood's platting. Furthermore, if approved, the park would be a
boon to the health and well-being of thc community.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use,
According to the applicants, there are very few sites in the immediate vicinity available
for public recreation, especially ones offering water access, as the subject property does.
However, it should be noted that there is an existing boat ramp (for motorized boats) and
an approved CU for a park on the south end ofthe island.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be
required to make the property usablefor any of the range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification.
Apart from the parcels occupied by the historic structures, the subject lots are vacant and
have been cleared as a result of decades of trailer and recreational vehicle ("RV") park
use. As shown on the conceptual plan, the historic structure fronting Pear Tree Avenue
destined for use as an "interpretive center" and six other historic structures located
Mar-Good Ha,bor Park, RZ-2008-AR-13967
Page 8 of 12
across Pettit Drive would remain, iftheir preservation is viable. Consequently, the degree
of site alteration for the park would be limited to the improvements depicted on the
conceptual plan and the possible demolition or removal of the four cottages between
Pettit Drive and the bay, which, as described under the "Historic/Archaeological
Preservation Board (HAPB) Recommendation" section on the following page, are eligible
and have been recommended by the County's HAPB for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places.
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.
If approved, the project would enhance the availability of beach access and, therefore,
raise the County's level of service standard for beach access.
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,
The residents of Goodland have expressed their desire to have the subject property
converted into a community park, as it would provide them with a place to relax, walk,
fish, picnic and launch non-motorized boats. The park would only be open from sunrise
to sunset, in accordance with the County's Parks and Recreation Department's policy,
and would be landscaped to ensure internal visibility from its periphery so that
residents and law enforcement could be vigilant of users' activity. As such, the project
would benefit the public's health, safety and welfare.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
Because the subject parcels were already developed or cleared, the applicants were not required to
submit an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this petition. As a result, a hearing before the
EAC was not necessary.
HlSTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGIC PRESERVATION BOARD (HAPB) RECOMMENDATION:
LDC section 2.03.07.E.2.c, Requests for Land Use Changes, states that property under consideration
for a Rezone within an area of historical or archaeological probability must have a historical and/or
archaeological survey and assessment prepared by a certified archaeologist to be provided to the
HAPB so that its recommendations can be presented to the CCPC and to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCe) at their public hearings. As the subject property is located within such an area
of historical or archaeological probability, the applicants submitted the requisite surveys, entitled "An
[sic] Historical Assessment of Buildings at Goodland Harbor Park in Collier County, Florida,"
prepared by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., and dated August, 2006; and "An Archaeological
Assessment of the Mar Good Parcel, Collier County, Florida," prepared by the Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy, Inc., and dated May, 2006. According to the results of these studies, all ] 3 of
the structures on the site, some of them dating back to the] 920's, are potentially eligible for listing in
Mar-Good Harbor Park, RZ-2008.AR-13967
Page 9 of 12
the National Register of Historic Places (see Appendix 2); and the group as a whole is eligible for
listing as a "historic district." Furthermore, the site contains multiple pre-historic middens, including a
particularly significant one previously sampled in the western portion of the site (labeled as "Trench
I-A" on the map contained in Appendix 3) from which artifacts such as pottery shards, shell tools,
modified bone and shell ornaments have been collected. As such, the consultant has recommended
Trench I-A for preservation due to its potential for the discovery of additional important
archaeological features and artifacts. However, the consultant archaeologist recommends that, should
subsequent development affecting Trench I-A reveal such artifacts, the relevant agencies be notified
so that they can be documented and preserved.
On January 21, 2009, this item was heard by the HAPB, which approved the aforementioned surveys
and assessments. At the meeting, the applicants were unable to confirm which of the buildings on the
site would be preserved, as they had not yet determined their structural soundness. The HAPB
members expressed concern for the destruction of the County's architectural heritage and called
attention to the importance of historic designation for the buildings on the site. However, because of
the time-sensitive nature of the Rezone and Variance petitions due to impending hearing dates, the
HAPB, at the request of the applicants, delayed historic designation of structures on the site and
instead made a motion to allow the applicant to go forward to the CCPC and BCC with the subject
Rezone (and its companion Variance application) provided that prior to the submittal of their SDP, the
applicants would return to the HAPB to explain the suitability of preservation or demolition of any of
the historic structures on the site. The HAPB would then provide their input, including possible formal
designation of the structures. The applicant's agreed to return to HAPB for this second hearing, at
which time they would demonstrate which structures could be preserved and/or restored according to
the historical assessment prepared by Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Nevertheless, four of the historic
structures, labeled as numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Appendix 2, are not shown on the conceptual site plan;
nor has Trench I-A from Appendix 3 been identified.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
(Synopsis provided by Cheri Rollins, Administrative Assistant):
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on March II, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the
Goodland Civic Association. Fifteen people from the public attended, as well as the applicant's team
of Ms. Heidi Williams, AlCP, and Ms. Sandra Bottcher of Q, Grady Minor and Associates, P A, along
with County Parks and Recreation Department staff. Zoning and Land Development Review staff
were also present.
Ms. Williams presented an overview of the requested rezone from RSF-4, VR and GZO districts to
the P zoning district for a community park. There was no opposition from those in attendance;
however the following questions were asked:
. If walls would be built and, if not, what kind of buffering would there be for adjacent
residential properties? Ms. William responded that they were seeking to install only a Type B
buffer since they had conducted a survey of residents who overwhelmingly approved of a
waiver of the wall requirement. Of those in attendance, all but one were in favor of the Type B
buffer instead of a wall; and this person was unsure if he opposed it.
Mar.Good Harbor Park, RZ-2008-AR-13967
Page 10 of 12
. One participant wanted to know who would maintain the site. Murdo Smith with the Collier
County Parks and Recreation Department responded that it would be maintained three times a
week, per County requirements, and that park rangers would patrol the site daily.
. One resident wanted to know what existing buildings would remain. Ms. Williams replied that
only the buildings that are structurally sound would remain and would be refurbished. She
further explained that the principal building would definitely remain and that it would be
renovated to include restrooms and meeting rooms. She also said that some of the other
buildings are being looked at as historical sites. One resident expressed to staff a desire to
maintain the historic structures on the site.
. Other participants asked if any part of the park could be designated as a dog park, to which Mr.
Smith replied that it could be an option in the future, but that there was no plan for it at this
time.
Overall, the residents of Goodland were overwhelmingly in favor of the proposed rezone being sought
by the County Parks and Recreation Department, and the meeting was adjourned at approximately
6:25 p.m.
Staff has received one letter of support for the project from the Goodland Civic Association, which
has been included as Appendix 4.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition RZ-
2008-AR-13967 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval contingent upon the following
conditions:
I. Development of the subject property shall be consistent with the applicable LDC requirements
and shall incorporate the recommendations of the HAPB, with respect to the preservation of
existing structures or other artifacts on site, at the time of site development plan (SDP) review
and approval
2. Any site development plan (SDP) submitted for the project shall be subject to review by the
County's Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board (HAPB), whose recommendations shall
be incorporated therein.
3. Uses on the site shall be limited to park and recreational service facilities, education facilities,
museums and libraries.
4. The dawn to dusk hours of operation for the park shall be posted on the site.
5. At least one bicycle rack shall be provided on the site.
APPENDICES:
Appendix I: Traffic Impact Statement (TIS)
Appendix 2: Structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
Mar-Good Ha,bo, Park, RZ-200B-AR-13967
Page 110112
Appendix 3: Midden Location Map
Appendix 4: Letter of Support
PREPARED BY:
-~ DAs:JR/()1
JO~ MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER 'lEt
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
~ 5//g/0f-
RA YM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER riA TEl
DEP AR MENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~ '-!hyY-<ib0^J-V S //g /09
USAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE '
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
~/; 10 r
PH K. SCHMITT, ADMIN I TRA TOR DATE
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the June 23, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Mar-Good Harbor Park. RZ-2008-AR-13967
Page 12 of 12
ORDINANCE NO, 09-
~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRlATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A
RESIDENTIAL' SINGLE FAMILY (RSF-4-GZO) AND
VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL (VR-GZO) ZONING DISTRICTS
WITHIN THE GOOD LAND ZONING OVERLAY TO A
PUBLIC USE (P) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT
KNOWN AS GOODLAND COMMUNITY PARK, LOCATED
ON MULTIPLE LOTS NORTH OF PEAR TREE AVENUE AND
WEST OF GOOD LAND DRIVE EAST IN GOOD LAND IN
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 2,62+/-
ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Heidi Williams of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, representing the Collier
County Department of Parks and Recreation, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to
change the zoning classification of the herein described real property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the real property more particularly described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, located in Section 18, Township 52 South,
Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, is changcd from a Residential Single Family (RSF-4-
GZO) and Village Residential (VR-GZO) Zoning Districts within the Goodland Zoning Overlay
to a Public Use (P) Zoning District for a 2.62+/- acre project known as Goodland Community
Park, subject to the conditions shown in Exhibit B. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as
described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, Ihe Collier County Land Development
Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly,
1
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State,
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, 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 form and
legal sufficiency:
r(~~/O~
(V
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A: Legal Description
Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval
CPI08-CPS0091216
2
Mar-Good Harbor Park
Folio Number
1. 46270800007
2 01057120000
3. 01057160002
4, 01057080001
5. 46270680007
6, 46270720006
7, 46270760008
8, 66680200002
9 66680120001
Address
None
None
None
426 Papaya
321 Pear Tree
321 Pear Tree
321 Pear Tree
326 Pettit
331 Pettit
Legal Description
Goodland Heights Amended, Block 3, Lot II
S/T/R 18/52/27, Parcel in Lot 14, Desc in DB 47, Pg 411
S/T/R 18/52/27, Parcel in DB 27-357
18/52/27 Parcel Desc in DB 54-59 in Govt Lot 14
Goodland Heights Amended, Block 3, Lot 4
Goodland Heights Amended, Block 3, Lots 5 and 6
Goodland Heights Amended, Block 3, Lots 7-10
Pettit Lots 9 and 10
Pettit Lots 4-6
Exhibit A
CONDITIONS OF APPRO V AL
RZ-2008-AR-13967
May 12, 2009
1. Development of the subject property shall be consistent with the applicable LDC
requirements and shall incorporate the recommendations of the HAPB, with
respect to the preservation of existing structures or other artifacts on site, at the
time of site development plan (SDP) review and approval
2. Any site development plan (SDP) submitted for the project shall be subject to
review by the County's Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board (HAPB),
whose recommendations shall be incorporated therein.
3. Uses on the site shall be limited to park and recreational servIce facilities,
education facilities, museums and libraries,
4. The dawn to dusk hours of operation for the park shall bc posted on the site.
5. At least one bicycle rack shall be provided on the site.
EXHIBIT B
RZ-2008-AR.13967
MAR GOOD RESORT
Project: 2004080030
Date: 11/18/08
REV: 1
DUE: 12/18/08
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
MARGOODHARBORPARK
PreIlm'ell By
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
CIVIl.. ENGINEllRS . LAND SURVEYOll,S . Ii
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
(239) 947.1144
November 2008
F:\PROJ - PlANNING DOCS\CCU60\TIS\TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT.doc
APPENDIX 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................,...............................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................2
2.0 SCOPE ......,.............................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................. 2
4.0 DISCUSSI ON ...........,..........................,................................................................................... 3
5.0 FIGURES AND MAPS ...........................................................,...............................................4
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................. 4
FIGURE 2 - PEAK PM HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION MAP ................,........................... 5
6.0 TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................. 6
TABLE 1 -TOTAL DAILY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ........................................... 6
TABLE 2 - ENTER/EXIT BREAKDOWN OF DAIL Y TRIPS........................................... 6
TABLE 3 - TOTAL DAILY EXTERNAL NON-PASS BY PROJECT TRIPS.................. 6
TABLE 4 - TOTAL AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ....... 6
TABLE 5- PROJECT DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ...................................................6
TABLE 6- IMPACTED SEGMENTS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ...................................7
7.0 APPENDICES ...................................................................,.....................................................8
7.1 Appendix A - Trip Generation (Proposed Facility)......................................................... 8
7.2 Appendix B - Trip Generation (Existing Facility)........................................................... 9
F:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\CC1160\TIS\TRAFFIC IMP ACT ST A TEMENT.doc
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Margood Harbor Park is comprised of several small platted lots that were
previously developed for residential uses before the Trust for Public Lands purchased them for
public use in 2005, The site is approximately 2.62 acres, and is located in section 18, Township
52 South, Range 27 East in Collier County, Florida. The property is designated Residential
Single-Family (RSF-4.GZO) and Villagc Residential (VR-GZO) with a Goodland Zoning
Overlay on the Official Zoning Atlas The rezoning application proposes the existing zoning
districts to change into a "Public" zoning, The property will be used as a Community Park,
The 2003 Aerial provided on Collier County Property Appraisal website shows that there were
45 mobile homes in the project area. Some of the structures will be demolished and some of
them will remain for thc use of Community Park, however none of these structures will be used
for residential purposes. The structures to be remained in the park will be used as an interpretive
center and few cottages will bc used as museums to serve the park. The purpose of the
interpretive center and museums is to provide gcneral information about the Community Park to
the visitors of the park. No additional traffic generation is anticipated by these structures.
The site will have pedestrian access from Pettit Drive and Papaya Street and will have vehicular
access from Pear Tree Avenue.
2.0 SCOPE
The following analyses are included in this report:
I. Trip Generation Calculations (at build out) presented For Peak Season Daily Traffic
(PSDT) including the Respectivc Peak Hour Volumes_
2. Discussion of Trip Assignment and Impacts to adjacent Roadways.
3.0 TRIP GENERATION
The 7th Edition Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) is
used for trip generation calculations provided in this report. The Land Use Code of 412 for County
Park is used to estimate the traffic volume for the proposed facility. Please refer to Tables 1
through 4.
The trip generation shows that, for a Land Use Code of 412, the Average Rate of the trips
generated by a County Park is 2.28 per acres. Therefore, an average weekday 2-way volume for
the proposed use is estimated as 6 trip ends as shown on table 1.
The 7th Edition Trip Generation does not have data available for peak hour trips fOT County Park,
howeveT for a worst case scenario the average weekday 2-way trip is assumed to be divided 50%
BPROJ - PLANNING DOCS\CCU60\TIS\TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENTdo,
- 2-
each direction during both peak hours, The peak hour trip can be estimated as 3 trip ends during
the AM peak hour and 3 trip ends for the PM peak hour,
The site was previously used for residential purpose and the 2003 Aerial provided on Collier
County Property Appraisal website shows that there were 45 mobile homes in the site. While
taking these mobile homes inlo account, it is evident that proposed development will result into
less traffic than the existing condition. For comparison between the existing traffic condition and
the proposed traffic condition, thc Land Use Code of240 for Mobile Home Park is used to
calculate the existing traffic condition for the total project area of 2,62 acres, which is more
conservative than using 45 dwelling units,
Please refer to the DISCUSSION section for details conceming the effects of these traffic
volumes on the level of service for roadway links within the RDL
4.0 DISCUSSION
Appendices A and B, in section 7,1 and 7.2 of the report, show the trip calculated by 7th Edition
Trip Generation for proposed and existing facilities respectively, Comparing the two trip
generation calculations, we can sec that 2,62 acres of proposed County Park will generate 6
Average Weekday 2-Way traffic while the same acrcage of Mobile Home Park generates 158
trips. This shows that the new proposed development would lessen the traffic that was being
generated by the existing facility, hence reducing the CUITcnt impact.
Also, the total average weekday 2-way traffic volume generatcd by the park without considering
the existing traffic generated by the existing Mobile Homes is only 6 trips. Assuming the peak
hour traffic as 50% of the average weekday 2-way traffic volume, the peak hour traffic volume
would be 3 trips. Table 5 shows the directional distribution of the peak hour lraffic along the
adjacent roadways. The park is intended to serve the adjacent neighborhood and if we assume the
traffic generated by the park will demonstrate 40% drop-off before reaching the local roadway
network, the impact of traffic on adjacent roadway network would be insignificant.
There will be one additional trip on the adjacent road as a result of the proposed project ifthe
existing traffic being generated by the area is not considercd, Table 6 shows the 5 year growth
analysis on the adjacent roadways with and without project per Collier County TIS guidelines.
The Collier County 2008 AUIR does not have information about San Marco Road. Therefore, we
have used the database of existing two lane undivided roadway (CR 29 segment between US 41
and ChokoJoskee Island) and growth ratc of 2% per Collier County TIS guidelines for the study
purpose. Table 6 shows that the projectlraffic will be lcss than 2% ofthe service volume of the
adjacent roadways. The proposed development will not affect the access and adjacent roadway,
hence no further impact study is requircd,
F:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\CCU60\TIS\TRAFF1C IMPACT STATEMENTdoc
-3-
5.0 FIGURES AND MAPS
FIGURE 1- LOCATION MAP
-'-'-'-,-- ~.~ /
I
1
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
,
I
I
\
,
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
I
GOODLAND BAY
o
GOODLAND
D,j
Q. GRADYMINOR &. ASSOCIATES. PA
lmL_.L\1aI_elUlHllll.~~
__0__'_-
-- -- --
LOCA nON I.lAP
WOIW<~_(QOf
F:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\CCU60\T1S\TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENTdoc
\Jl
.u
--
-
-
-
--
.....n.......
_IDrI
- 4-
FIGURE 2 - PEAK PM HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION MAP
PEAK PM HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION MAP
\
\
\
\ GOODLAND BAY
\ 0
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ GOODLAND
\
\
\
I
\
I
I
I
I MNtUO "'v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
D"~
/
/
30_
(1)
\
\
\
\
92
L<WlJl
xxx", lRlP DtSTRlBlJllON PERCENT
(X) .. PEAK Pl,4 HOUR TRIP OlSTRl6UTlOJ.l
,
.
E
i
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES. P.A.
C'\Y'4.~.l.JlIm'lMWtYOtS.PI.A/tI<t:U.u.t<D5CA",^lClJlTl'Crs
--=="" . 'J:r::= . ~=
....W1II.c......OYlolltlOll-<:oM
MARGOOD PARK
~
.
--
-
-
PEAK PM HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION MAP
~-
--.
SfltrtlllP' I
F:\PROJ _ PLANNING DOCS\CCU60\TlS\TRAFFIC IMP ACT ST A TEMENTdoc
.5-
6.0 TRIP GENERATION
TABLE I-TOTAL DAILY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
TABLE 2 - ENTER/EXIT BREAKDOWN OF DAILY TRIPS
TABLE 3 - TOTAL DAILY EXTERNAL NON-PASS BY PROJECT TRIPS
TABLE 4 - TOTAL AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
COUNTY PARK
412
2.62 ACRES
50% of ave. weekday
2-way volume
TABLE 5- PROJECT DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
Goodland Drive
San Marco Road
Pro'ect to San Marco Road
North of Goodland Drive
South of Goodland Drive
60%
2
30%
o
o
San Marco Road
30%
F:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\CCU60\TIS\TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENTdoc
- 6-
~ ",
~
~ ~
:! :!
~
U
~ ~ ~
~ "
r/J ~ -,
... u
0 0
~
>-1 f-
'n Iii
~ ~ ,-
> 00 00 22
"'
~ f-
>-1 -<
h
~ ~ ~ U:
c "
" f-
Z 0 0 U
'" ~
~ -<
-< t " P.
0 0 6
r/J z ~
f-< u
Z Ii:
~ ~
:;E t::
0 ~
~ " 0 5
" " 0
r/J is is ~
u
~ ~ ~ u
;; ;; u
~ " " Vi
f-< 0 0 u
<3 <3 0
U ~ ~ co
-< 0 0 "
~ ~
p... t " 2;
0 0
:;E z ~ z
z
...... -<
, '"
'0 p.
~ ~ 11
" 0
0 0
>-1 '" '" '"
~ 8 0 ""
-< " " G;
;;; ;;;
f-< ;; ;;
~ ~
en en
;l' ;l'
0 0
0' ~
? ?
~ :g
'"
:2
~
o
~
7.0 APPENDICES
7.1 Appendix A - Trip Generation (Proposed Facility)
Margood Harbor Park
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 2.62 Acres of County Park
August 07, 2008
Average
Rate
Standard
Deviation
Adjustment
Factor
Driveway
Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 2.28 7.04 1. 00 6
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.01 0.00 1. 00 0
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1. 00 0
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.01 0.10 1. 00 0
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.02 0.00 1. 00 0
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.04 0.00 1. 00 0
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.06 0.25 1. 00 0
Saturday 2-Way Volume 12.14 9.63 1.00 32
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 1. 32 0.00 1. 00 3
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.92 0.00 1. 00 2
Saturday Peak Hour Total 2.24 0.00 1. 00 6
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
F:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\CCU60\TIS\TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT.doc
7.2 Appendix B - Trip Generation (Existing Facility)
Margood Harbor Park
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 2.62 Acres of MobIle Home Park
August 07, 2008
Average
Rate
Standard
Deviation
Adjustment
Factor
Driveway
Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 60.14 0.00 1.00 158
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 2.45 0.00 1.00 6
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 11.16 0.00 1.00 29
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 13.61 0.00 1.00 36
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 6.24 0.00 1.00 16
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 3.67 0.00 1.00 10
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 9.91 0.00 1.00 26
Saturday 2-Way Volume 64.00 0.00 1.00 168
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 4.46 0.00 1.00 12
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 3.80 0.00 1.00 10
Saturday Peak Hour Total 8.26 0.00 1. 00 22
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
The above rates were calculated from these equations:
24-Hr. 2-Way Volume: LN(T) ~ . 82LN (X) + 4.27, R^2 0,77
7-9 AM Peak Hr. Total: T = 1. 94 (X) + 30.58
R^2 = 0.59 , 0.18 Enter, 0.82 Exit
4-6 PM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) = . 64LN (X) + 2.64
R^2 0.68 , 0.63 Enter, 0.37 Exit
AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: T = 1. 93 (X) + 33.99
R^2 0.59 , 0.25 Enter, 0.75 Exit
PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) .63LN(X) + 2.68
R^2 ~ 0.67 , 0.63 Enter, 0.37 Exit
Sat. 2-Way Volume: LN(T) .76LN(X) + 4.39, R^2 = 0.66
Sat. Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) .7LN(X) + 2.4
R^2 ~ 0.89 , 0.54 Enter, 0.46 Exit
Sun. 2-Way Volume: LN(T) .76LN(X) + 4.24, R^2 = 0.64
Sun~ Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) .68LN(X) + 2.4
R^2 - 0.82 0.51 Enter, 0.49 Exit
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
F:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\CCU60\TIS\TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT.doc
9
RESULTS
Twelve structures and one building were documented during the historical assessment of
MarGood Resort and RV Park. MarGood will be developed as a public park by the Collier County
Parks and Recreation Administration, and the new park will be Goodland Harbour Park. All thirteen
historic resources were considered potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. Collier County plans to restore and use some of them in the new park. All thirteen resources
have been included in Resource Group 8CR947 (Figure 1). TIle structures and their locations are
show in Figure 4 below.
mobile home park
paved road
"
~
'"
~
'<
~
!;'
~. --~-_.------- ---
post
office
-----------------._-
,
,
,
Pear Tree Avenue
,
I:
----------,
Legend:
[~] BCR94B 11 BCR954
,
iJ] BCR949 . BCR955
Ij] BCR9S0 . BCR956
III BCR9S1 ~ BCR95?
II BCR952 [TIJ 8CR958
II 8CR953 ~ 8CR959
---- chain 1ink fenc~ . BCR960
----
Goodland Harbour Park
Collier County, Florida
o
,
50
100
meters
~
Figure 4. Sketch of the location of MarGood Park historic resources.
APPENDIX 2
RESOURCE GROUP FORM
Statement of Significance
Site #8CR1947
MarGood is located in Goodland on the eastern side of Marco Island. Goodland is on a point of
land reaching out into the middle of Goodland Bay. An unincorporated community that welcomes
winter visitors, Goodland has approximately 400 year-round residents. Until recently, MarGood,
was a boat marina and trailer park where visitors rented space for their personal trailer or
recreational vehicle, or rented a cottage from the park proprietors. MarGood was a winter resort for
more than fifty years, in operation every year between 1952 and 2005.
Most of the cottages that are at MarGood today are the same cottages that were there when the
trailer park opened fifty years ago. Three cottages, however, were moved to MarGood from a
fish camp on Marco Island in the late1950s. Those cottages date to the 1920s and are an
example of early basic shelter provided for tourists who came to the area to fish. The trailer
park also has two intact cisterns.
The property is a midden created by the Calusa. When occupied by white settlers at the end of
the 19th century, the midden was planted in avocado and sugar apple trees. When the farming
family sold the property in the mid-to-Iate 1940s. the property was developed as a trailer park
and boat marina. Collier County, the current owner, plans to develop the property as a public
park.
TABULATION OF RESOURCES
Name
Johnson-Combs Theater and Museum
Laundry and Cistern
Duplex Cottage
MarGood Cottage #4
MarGood Cottage #5
MarGood Cottage #6
MarGood Cottage #7
MarGood Cottage #8
MarGood Cottage #9
MarGood Cottage #10
MarGood Cottage #11
Cistern for Cottages 8CR955-8CR958
And Laundromat 8CR960
Laundromat/Shell Shop
FSF Number
8CR948
8CR949
8CR950
8CR951
8CR952
8CR953
8CR954
8CR955
8CR956
8CR957
8CR958
8CR959
8CR960
o
,
-A ~-
-~,~~~
----i
.... -- I r
, e- ll>
,-- -......-- ._J
(Q
, c ll>
!': 0 !': :J
2 2 2 a.
,..- 0 0;- 0
c' " 2' <0 C
, ~ . ~ (1l a;
, .- (1l U>
,-, U> a- U>
S- O' a-
--, 0' (1l 0'
, '" a; (1l
,. til
, (1l 3
" 0 3
< 0
Q (1l <
0. (1l
'- ----..:.., <= 0 Q.
~ 0
.. '. C- o. ~
-, Iii (1l Q.
3 <D
" Q. 3
"
~ "' Q.
:r "'
'" :r
0. <D
0.
.. -
../"
.,-~-=:.--;-
..,--~>-~-
o
o
1 ;- -!r--I
, Ii
) -. ! ~ -
'-'-.~
I~----'
,
N
o ,
--a--rr--,
~
C'
;r- i/
,)1 J'i
f-',
, \
~'-
~,
~~'-----
j
'-
~__2=~ i
;kU:x:
~~
''''''"' W
.- a:
-I-
=>::-"""~
.'=~ iff
Figure 13. Map of the Mar-Good Parcel area showing location of
archaeological trenches,
z~
BASE MAP CREATED BY AMANDA TOWNSEND, 2005
,
o
50
100
,
200 Feet approx.
APPENDIX 3
Artifacts
Most of the collected artifacts were recovered from the black earth midden in Trench I.
Artifacts include pottery sherds, shell tools, shell ornaments, and some modified bone. A
large quantity of the material was recovered from the spoil by volunteers from SWF AS
who sifted the sediments and analyzed the recovered material at the Craighead
Laboratory. Other samples recovered in-situ from the trench walls, including materials
associated with the column samples were washed, catalogued, and analyzed a the ABC
lab in Davie.
The column sampling and other collecting produced faunal bone (primarily fish remains),
ceramics, numerous shell tools, bone artifacts, and charcoal,. This collection of material
is the largest and only provenienced sample recovered from the Goodland site to date.
Pottery sherds were the most numerous artifacts recovered. A total of 1723 pottery
sherds were recovered of which 453 pottery sherds were recovered from the spoil sifted
by volunteers. These sherds include material mixed from redeposited and in-situ
material. A total of 1271 sherds were recovered from the three column samples, from
Trench 1. Decorated types include Surfside Incised, Plantation Pinched, Ft. Drum
Punctate, Ft. Drum Incised, several non-local types and various unique incised types
occur. The largest number of the decorated sherds were recovered from the spoil, which
included soils from the length of Trench I-A. The only decorated types recovered from
the column samples were ten Surfside Incised and one tooled rim. A single ceramic
pendant cnt from a pot sherd was found in the column sample (see cover).
Shell artifacts inCluded hammers, perforated Arca, a shell gouge (Fig. 46), shell pendent
fragment (Fig. 47), and a Busycon net gage (Fig. 45). Lithic artifacts include a circular
net weight (Fig. 49).
Conclusions
This assessment indicates that there are large areas of intact prehistoric shell deposits
throughout the Mar-Good parcel, although the upper two feet are disturbed. The area in
the western portion of the parcel which is characterized as a deeply stratified black earth
midden is significant and should be preserved. JIrlPilcts there should be avoided. ' If any
subsurface throughout the Mar-Good parcel are to be impacted by future development,
then archaeological monitoring or investigation is recommended.
,Th~f~isapotential of important archaeological features, artifacts occurring, and should
subsequentdeyelopment reveal this, the consultant archaeologist and relevant agencies
"s~9"ui(f})~-~~t!fi~d and efforts should be~ade to document these resources. If human
remaillsare' uncovered then the provisiori~' for Florida Statute 872.05, the Unmarked
Human Graves Act, will apply,
APPENDIX 4
MossJohndavid
From: m,barbush@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 13. 200911:21 AM
To: ' MossJohndavid
Subject: Petitions RZ-2008-AR-13967. VA-2008-AR-13671
Dear Mr. Moss,
As President of the Goodland Civic Association and on behalf of our membership, we
support petition RZ-2008-AR-13967 to rezone MarGood Resort to MarGood Harbor Park. We
also support petition VA-208-AR-13671 to eliminate walls in favor of landscape buffering and
the setback changes to accommodate the kayak storage facility. Our membership
overwhelming approved both petitions. The wide open character and open water views at
MarGood should be preserved. We have been involved with Parks and Recreation and Grady-
Minor since the inception of this project. We agree with the low intensity uses and overall plan
as presented at our many community meetings. We look forward to working with staff and will
send e-mails to the Planning Board endorsing the petitions. Please feel free to contact me at
MJ3Q[bus.b@comcast.n~J or call (239) 394-0841.
Sincerely,
Mike Barbush - President
5/13/2009
AGENDA ITEM 9-C.
ctlf.itr County
_~P~<:::';(JZ.:S
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION
HEARING DATE: JUNE 4,2009
SUBJECT:
VA-2008-AR-13671, MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK (COMPANION TO
RZ-2008-AR-13967)
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT:
Owner:
Collier County Parks and
Recreation Department
15000 Livingston Road
Naples, FL 34109
Agent:
Heidi Williams, AICP
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
3800 Via del Ray
Bonita Springs, FL 3
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider 11 Variances from Land
Development Code (LDC) Subsection 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, and one Variance from
Subsection 4.02.03, Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures,
Table 4, for a commrmity park.
GEOGRAPIDC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the north side of Pear Tree Avenue; west of Goodland Drive
East; east of Papaya Street and Goodland Bay; and south of Pettit Drive and Goodland Bay, in
Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Goodland, Collier County, Florida (see
location map on the following page).
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
According to LDC Section 9.04.02, Types of Variances Authorized, a Variance may be requested
for any dimensional development standard, including the dimensional aspects oflandscaping and
buffering. In order to build a waterfront commrmity park that would preserve views of Goodland
Bay, the applicants are requesting Variances from the required 10-foot Type "D" buffers along
adjacent roadways and from the required IS-foot Type "B" buffers along various interfaces with
v A.2008.AR.13671
May 12, 2009
Page 1
\
\
'-W"'; OJ WN / ____ ._
_ -C-
I !
Y
I
I 6l',fS
I
! L ~ <,
I " <",
/ "
J,
r "':
",
<,
51 ~
,
,
I
J
,
I
,
, ,
1 l'i6<j"J
<;;L-I
/
'<1>,;1-,,,0
",0 "
D..
<(
~
c.9
z
z
o
N
~
'"
~
'"
<:1'.::
~I
"
"
;1
~I
D..
<(
~
z
o
I-
<(
o
o
-.J
~~ND DRIVE EAST ~
-r--
II
I
I
r
I !
01
I I
I
I
I
I
01
I I
*.L.~J \
~I ' ., I
I Ii \
, \. ~_Jl __..J \
J 'u \~I\
~33"~S VWdV; -;1i \
.! '"
n I~ \
I. \<L
-, \
I
1
I
--ff-
:!
~i
..lL
II
~
a
z
:'i
a
a
a
"
I
!
l
II
,
I!
l
.
"
~
"
~
"
.
9
o
~
11
11
.
,
o
. Z
I
,
,I
,I
II
,
I!
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
-
KU
--
-
-
---
~-
-.
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES P A
CIVIL EN'GINEERS . U<ND SURVEYORS -I'LI.NNER.S. U.N'OSCAI'EA.:cH~;;
IIOWlT..SPI<Ml:1 . R;IllT.....us . _1>I1'OI.T
(1lOl"''''' ""'_ It<I.........
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE
WWW.GRADYMlNC!R-COI.l
SHE'iT IOF I
adjoining residential uses. In an effort to maintain the eXlstmg setbacks of several historic
structures in the easternmost portion of the site, the applicants are requesting a further reduction
of the required IS-foot Type "B" buffer width to five feet. Because the LDC only permits
Variances from the requirements of Subsection 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, to be strictly
dimensional, the plant materials required by LDC-compliant buffers would still need to be
planted within the modified buffer areas or accommodated elsewhere on the site. Finally, the
applicants are requesting two setback Variances from the requirements of LDC Subsection
4.02.03, Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures, Table 4, for two
accessory structures-a covered shelter and a canoe storage rack-to reduce their side yards
from 10 feet to five feet.
As depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan entitled, "Mar-Good Harbor Park," prepared by Q.
Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and dated August 2008, the proposed park would provide
pedestrian pathways adjacent to Goodland Bay for passive recreational use. These pathways
would offer pedestrian access from Papaya Street to the west, Pettit Drive to the east, and Pear
Tree A venue to the south, providing users of the park with interconnections to two piers, a
playground, volleyball court, bocce ball court, picnic area, a canoelkayak launch, and various
overhead shelter areas. A historic building on the site is proposed to be adapted for re-use as an
"interpretive center" (i.e., a museum and educational facility), and several historic buildings
across Pettit Drive are also proposed to remain. Each of these buildings is eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places and was recommended for historic designation by the
County's Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board (HAPB). Vehicular access to the park
facility would be possible from two access points on Pear Tree A venue, where a 20-space
parking lot would be provided. Along the park's perimetcr, the following buffers and transitional
screening would be installed (these buffers are graphically illustrated in Exhibit C to the
resolution, which has been attached to this report):
I. In the two areas on the conceptual site plan labeled with cross-section A-A, Variances
from LDC Subsection 4.06.02.C.2 to allow: clustered trees every 50 linear feet instead of
the requirement for individual trees to be planted every 25 feet on center; clustered--or
"staggered"--shrubs, instead of the required single hedgerow; and a waiver of the wall
requirement between residential and non-residential uses;
2. In the two areas labeled with cross-section B-B, Variances from LDC Subsection
4.06.02.C.2 to allow: clustered trees every 50 linear feet instead of the requirement for
individual trees to be planted every 25 feet on center; "staggered" shrubs instead of the
required double hedgerow; and a waiver of the wall requirement between residential and
non-residential uses;
3. In the four locations labeled with cross-section C-C, Variances from LDC Subsection
4.06.02.C.4 to allow: clustered trees every 50 linear feet instead of the requirement for
individual trees to be planted every 30 feet on center; and a waiver of the wall
requirement;
4. In the location labeled with cross-section D-D, Variances from LDC Subsection
4.06.02.C.4 to allow: clustered trees every 50 linear feet instead of the requirement for
individual trees to be planted every 30 feet on center; a "continuous double staggered
hedgerow" instead of the required double hedgerow; and a waiver of the required wall
between residential and non-residential uses;
5. In the location labeled with cross-section E-E, Variances from LDC Subsection
4.06.02.C.2 to allow: a ten-foot wide buffer instead of the required IS-foot wide buffer;
v A.2008.AR.] 3671
May 12, 2009
Page 2
clustered trees every 50 linear feet instead of the requirement for individual trees to be
planted every 25 feet on center; and a waiver of the required wall between residential and
non-residential uses;
6. In the location labeled with cross-section F-F, Variances from LDC Subsection
4.06.02.C.4 to allow: clustered trees every 50 linear feet instead of the requirement for
individual trees to be planted every 30 feet on center; and a waiver of the wall
requirement between residential and non-residential uses;
7. In the three areas labeled with cross-section G-G, Variances from LDC Subsection
4.06.02.C.2 to allow: buffer widths of five feet instead of the required 15 feet, due to the
existence of historic structures there; clustered trees every 50 linear feet instead of the
requirement for individual trees to be planted every 30 feet on center; and a waiver of the
wall requirement between residential and non-residential uses;
8. In the location labeled with cross-section H-H, Variances from LDC Subsection
4.06.02.C.4 to allow: clustered trees every 50 linear feet instead of the requirement for
individual trees to be planted every 30 feet on center; and a waiver of the wall
requirement between residential and non-residential uses;
9. Along the beach in the locations labeled with cross-sections I-I, Variances from LDC
Subsection 4.06.02.C.2 to allow: clustered trees every 50 linear feet instead of the
requirement for individual trees to be planted every 25 feet on center (with various
shoreline restoration plantings to substitute for the required double hedgerow); and a
waiver of the wall requirement between residential and non-residential uses;
10. In the location labeled with cross-section J-J, Variances from LDC Subsection
4.06.02.C.2 to allow: clustered trees every 50 linear feet instead of the requirement for
individual trees to be planted every 25 feet on center; a waiver of the required double
hedgerow; and a waiver of the wall requirement between residential and non-residential
uses;
1 I. In the location labeled with cross-section K-K, Variances from LDC Subsection
4.06.02.C.4 to allow: a buffer width of five feet instead of the required 10 feet, due to the
existing playground's chain-link fence, which accommodates children's "fall zones"
surrounding the playground equipment; a waiver of the required trees planted 30 feet on
center; and a waiver of the wall between residential and non-residential uses.
In addition, the applicants are requesting:
12. Two Variances from LDC Subsection 4.02.03, Specific Standards for Location of
Accessory Buildings and Structures, Table 4, to allow reduction of the required ten-foot
side yard setback to five feet for both a covered shelter (the northernmost on the site plan)
and a canoe storage rack.
It should be noted that, although the applicants are requesting a waiver of the wall requirement
between residential and non-residential uses with this application, an administrative process
exists for this type of waiver, which staff will review for appropriateness and the mitigation of
impacts under a separate application. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed by this report.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North: Single-family homes with an RSF-4, VR and GZO zoning designation; and Goodland
Bay
VA.2008.AR.13671
May 12, 2009
Page 3
South:
Single-family homes with an RSF-4 and GZO zoning designation; and Pear Tree
Avenue
Single family homes with an RSF-4, VR and GZO zoning designation
Single-family homes with an RSF-4, VR and GZO zoning designation
East:
West:
AERIAL VIEW
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Conservation on the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area
(CHHA). The purpose of this designation is to conserve and maintain the natural resources of
Collier County for their associated environmental, recreational and economic benefits. Relevant
to this petition, the Conservation designation permits non-residential uses, including parks, open
space and recreational uses, and allows water-dependent and water-related uses, such as the
requested fishing pier, boating pier, and canoe launch. The GMP does not address individual
Variance requests but focuses on the larger issue of the actual use. Therefore, since the proposed
use is consistent with the Conservation designation, staff deems it to be consistent with the GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Section 9.04.01 of the LDC gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant
VA.2008.AR.13671
May 12, 2009
Page 4
Variances. The CCPC is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Subsection 9.04.03
A. through H., in italics below, as general guidelines to assist in making a recommendation of
approval or denial. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions, and offers the
following:
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. As noted in the companion Rezone staffreport, the proposed park site's configuration
is the result of a prior owner's aggregation of available parcels in the area, many of which
were irregularly shaped by virtue of their location on Goodland Bay. Because the
community would like to preserve the park's and adjacent neighbors' viewsheds of the
bay, the applicants are proposing to cluster most of the required plant materials instead of
installing them in their required linear formation. According to the applicant, the
community also specifically requested that the proposed covered shelter in the
northernmost comer of the park be situated in that location because of water views
afforded there; however, as evidenced by the site plan, it is a particularly constrained
comer of the site, necessitating a setback Variance. Additionally, the presence of multiple
historic structures proposed for preservation across Pettit Drive demands the reduced
buffer widths requested in the easternmost portion of the park; and an existing fenced
playground the applicants would prefer not to move has been cited as the reason for the
requested reduced buffer width along cross-section K - K.
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?
Yes, there are pre-existing conditions that do not result from the action of the applicant.
The neighborhood was platted decades ago without any consideration given to a
neighborhood park; and the subject site's unusual shape is a direct consequence of the only
available properties the applicants' land grantor was able to consolidate. Furthermore,
almost half of the site contains pre-existing structures, which are eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places.
c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and
undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant?
Yes. A literal interpretation of the LDC provisions would create practical difficulties for
the applicants by preventing them from developing the site in accordance with the
community's desire to preserve views of Goodland Bay. It would also preclude their
ability to erect the proposed covered shelter at the site's northernmost point, as specifically
requested by the community; and to incorporate the historic structures across Pettit Drive
into the park project, since some ofthese structures stand in the required buffer yards.
d. Will the Variances, if granted, be the minimum Variances that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health,
safety and welfare?
VA.2008-AR.1367 I
May 12, 2009
Page 5
Yes. According to the applicants, the number and size of the requested Variances have
been limited to those necessary to provide the amenities required by the community. In
response to the community's wishes, they are requesting reductions in buffer widths and
the ability to depart from the typical linear arrangement of plant materials in favor of
clustered planting areas that would permit park and bay views from outside the park itself.
This design approach would not only have aesthetic benefits, but would also be consistent
with a commonly accepted CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design)
principle for public parks, since such a landscape design would allow outsiders to surveil
activities within the park.
e. Will granting the Variances 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?
No. A Variance by definition confers some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations
specific to a site. However, as previously noted, LDC Section 9.04.02 provides relief
through the Variance process for any dimensional development standard, including the
dimensional aspects of landscaping and buffering requirements. As such, other properties
facing a similar hardship would be entitled to make a similar Variance request and would
be conferred equal consideration.
f. Will granting the Variances be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare?
Yes. LDC Subsection 4.06.0 1 .A.2, Buffering and Screening, states that the purpose and
intent of landscape buffering and screening is to, among other things:
. Reduce the potential incompatibility of adjacent land uses;
. Maintain open space;
. Enhance community identity;
. Improve the aesthetic appearance of development;
. Provide physical and psychological benefits to persons through landscaping by
reducing noise and glare;
. Improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat and
chemical pollution... and the creation of shade and microclimate; and
. Reduce heat gain in or on buildings and paved areas through the filtering capacity
of trees and vegetation.
As the LDC-required plant materials would still be provided in dimensionally modified
buffer areas, the proposed Variances, with the conditions of approval recommended by
staff, would be harmonious with these objectives.
g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals
and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.?
VA.2008.AR.13671
May 12,2009
Page 6
Yes, there are physically induced conditions that would ameliorate the goals and objectives
of these regulations. The site is located on Goodland Bay, whose viewsheds the applicants,
at the request of the surrounding neighbors, would like to preserve. This objective could
only be accomplished by way of the proposed Variances to allow clustering of the required
plant materials. Furthermore, the clustered buffers would also allow the integration into the
project of a group of historic buildings across Pettit Drive. Both of these aims would
enhance the aesthetics of the surrounding area and, with the conditions of approval
recommended by staff, compensate for the impact of the requested Variances from the
requirements of the LDC.
With respect to the reduced side yard setbacks for the overhead shelter and the canoe
storage rack, these two Variances would be mitigated by these structures' separation by
Goodland Bay from the nearest residential uses.
h. Will granting the Variances be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
Approval of this Variance petition would not have any affect on the GMP. The proposed
use is permitted within the land use designation of the GMP in which it is located.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAe does not normally hear Variance petitions and did not hear this one.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the cepe forward Petition V A-2008-AR-1367I to the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions:
I. The dimensional Variances approved are strictly limited to the landscape buffer width
requirements and side yard setback requirements as depicted on the applicant's conceptual
site plan, entitled "Mar-Good Harbor Park," and its associated cross-sections, prepared by Q.
Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and dated August 2008, as further restricted below.
2. The ten-foot buffer width granted is limited to the location labeled as cross-section E-E, as
depicted in the conceptual site plan and its associated cross-section included as Exhibit A, to
allow a reduction of the IS-foot wide buffer requirement.
3. The five-foot buffer width granted is limited to the three areas labeled with cross-section G-
G, as depicted in the conceptual site plan and its associated cross-section included as Exhibit
A, to allow a reduction from the IS-foot wide buffer requirement.
4. The five-foot buffer width granted is limited to the location labeled with cross-section K-K,
as depicted in the conceptual site plan and its associated cross-section included as Exhibit A,
to allow a reduction from the 10- foot wide buffer requirement.
5. A five-foot setback Variance shall be permitted for the northernmost covered shelter and the
canoe storage rack, as depicted on the conceptual site plan, to allow a five-foot side yard
setback instead of the required ten-foot side yard setback.
VA-2008-AR-13671
May 12.2009
Page 7
6. All the plant materials required by the LDe for screening and buffering shall be
accommodated in the modified and/or reduced width buffers' respective areas, or may be
relocated to other areas of the site, subject to review and approval by the County Landscape
Architect.
7. Irrespective of that depicted in the cross-section J-J exhibit, a double hedgerow shall be
provided in this buffer, which may be clustered and planted at a minimum height of 30
inches in order to preserve views.
8. If any of the historic structures across Pettit Drive are removed such that the LDe-required
IS-foot buffer width could be accommodated, then the five-foot buffer width shall not be
permitted.
VA-2008-AR-13671
May 12, 2009
Page 8
PREPARED BY:
JO~D-~eIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
[;/7i OJ
DAT
REVI. EWED BY: .It..
~?5: ~
RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
5/;~/or
I DATE
:t1 ^~''f'h .'<. Qaf /'nJ.<> S /; e /0 9
--SUSAN MURRA Y-ISTENES, Alep, DIRECTOR / DATE '
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
~r;;l
/IDTE
PH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
VICES DIVISION
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the June 23, 2009 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
VA-2008-AR-1367 I
Page 9
MossJohndavid
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
WilliamsSteven
Monday, May 18, 2009 8:11 AM
MossJohndavid
bonham_g; ashton_h
RE: 08 CPS 00882
The staff report is legally sufficient.
Steven T. Williams
Assistant Count::J Attorne::J
Collier Count::J
(2)9) 252-8+2+
From:
Sent:
To:
CC:
Subject:
MossJohndavid
Friday, May 15, 20094:27 PM
WilliamsSteven
bonham_g
DB CPS 00882
Steve,
Staff Report for your review. Heidi has the companion RZ 13967.
Thanks!
<< File: Staff Report. doc >>
Jolin-'Da'VUf'Moss, Alep
Principal Planner/Urban Design Planner
Zoning & Land Development Review
Community Development & EnviromnenIal Services
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
tel. 239.252.4237
fax 239.252.6968
RESOLUTION 09-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER VA-2008-AR-1367I, FOR ELEVEN VARIANCES
FROM LDC SUBSECTION 4.06.02, CONCERNING BUFFER
REQUlREMENTS AND ONE VARIANCE FROM LDC
SUBSECTION 4.02.03, CONCERNING STANDARDS FOR
LOCATION OF ACCESSORY BU1LDINGS AND
STRUCTURES; EACH OF THE TWELVE VARIANCES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A COMMUNITY PARK
WITHIN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF-4) AND
VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL (VR) ZONING WITH A
GOODLAND ZONING OVERLAY (GZO) ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE
27 EAST HEREINAFTER DESCRlBED 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 eleven
variances from LDC subsection 4.02.03, concerning buffer requirements and two variances from
LDC subsection 4.02.03, concerning standards for the location of accessory buildings and
structures as shown on the attached Exhibit "A": conceptual site plan, in the
Residential Single Family (RSF-4) and Village Residential (VR) Zoning Districts, both of which
contain Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO) for the property hereinafter described, and has found
as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all
1
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:
The Petition Number V A-2008-AR-13671 filed by Heidi Williams of Q. Grady Minor
and Associates representing Collier County Parks and Recreation Department with respect to the
property hereinafter described as:
See Attached Exhibit "B"
be and the same hereby is approved for variances from LDC subsection 4.06.02 to allow:
I. A variance in cross-sections A-A of the conceptual site plan to allow: clustered trees
every 50 lineal feet instead of trees planted every 25 feet on center; clustered or
"staggered" shrubs instead of the required single hedgerow;
2. A variance in cross-sections B-B of the conceptual site plan to allow: clustered trees
every 50 lineal feet, instead of trees planted 25 feet on center, "staggered" shrubs
instead of the required double hedgerow;
3. A variance in cross-section C-C of the conceptual site plan to allow clustered trees every
50 lineal feet instead of trees planted 30 feet on center;
4. A variance in cross-section D-D of the conceptual site plan to allow clustered trees every
50 lineal feet instead of trees planted 30 feet on center and a double clustered hedgerow
instead of the required double hedgerow;
5. A variance in cross-section E-E of the conceptual site plan to allow a ten-foot wide buffer
enhanced by a landscaped stormwater management pond instead of a 15-foot wide buffer;
clustered trees every 50 lineal feet instead of trees planted 25 feet on center;
6. A variance in cross section F-F of the conceptual site plan to allow clustered trees every
50 lineal feet instead of trees planted 30 feet on center;
2
7. A variance in cross-sections G-G of the conceptual site plan to allow buffer widths of
five feet instead of 15 feet due to the presence of historic structures; clustered trees every
50 lineal feet instead of trees planted 25 feet on center; and a clustered double hedgerow;
8. A variance in cross-section H-H of the conceptual site plan to allow clustered trees every
50 lineal feet instead of trees planted 30 feet on center;
9. A variance in cross-section I-I of the conceptual site plan to allow clustered trees every
50 lineal feet instead of trees planted 25 feet on center; various shoreline plantings to be
permitted instead of a the double hedgerow;
10. A variance in cross section J-J of the conceptual site plan to allow clustered trees every
50 lineal feet instead of trees planted every 25 feet on center and a waiver of the double
hedgerow;
II. A variance in cross-section K-K of the conceptual site plan to allow a buffer width of five
feet instead of ten feet due to the existing playground fence and a waiver of the required
trees to be planted 30 feet on center;
Also be and the same hereby is approved for a variance from LDC subsection 4.02.03 to allow:
12. A reduction of the required ten-foot side yard setback for the northernmost covered
shelter and a canoe storage rack from 10 feet to five feet for both structures.
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
, Deputy Clerk
By:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
By:
3
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
STEVEN T. WILLIAMS 5"WJ
Assistant County Attorney 5'.,$"0".
EXHIBIT "A":
EXHIBIT "B":
EXHIBIT "C":
EXHIBIT "D":
08-CPS-00882\16
REV. 5/15/09
Conceptual Site Plan
Legal Description
Cross Sections of Buffers
Conditions of Approval
4
~
~
,
~
"
.
5
~
~
~
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES P A
c::rvn.. EmiINEERS . LANOSUR.vEYORS a I'I...'.J<lNERS . LANDSCAJ'E A;CH~
~..~ . :: . ",,~~,.'~'
WWW.CIlADYMlNOR.roM
. z
~
m
o
z
~
o
o
o
'"
~~rT- -
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" I
I I
~_:J \
'I I
I Ii \ \
.,
-,
t.._J. __.J
J LJ \~I\
- 1m \
133~;S V,WdV; - ~i
~ I~
! f II
I
i
I
I
I
--N---
H
g~
-,
__ll.
I,
I
!
.
"
1l
:1
I!
,
~~
Exhibit A
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE
~~
.,.
.....""~
~
.-
M~_
~-
=~,
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
:mE!.T 1 OF' 1
Mar-Good Harbor Park
Folio Number
I. 46270800007
2. 01057120000
3. 01057160002
4. 01057080001
5. 46270680007
6. 46270720006
7 46270760008
8. 66680200002
9. 66680120001
Address
None
None
None
426 Papaya
321 Pear Tree
321 Pear Tree
321 Pear Tree
326 Pettit
331 Pettit
Legal Description
Goodland Heights Amended, Block 3, Lot I]
SIT/R 18/52/27, Parcel in Lot 14, Desc in DB 47, Pg 411
S/T/R 18/52/27, Parcel in DB 27-357
18/52/27 Parcel Desc in DB 54-59 in Govt Lot 14
Goodland Heights Amended, Block 3, Lot 4
Goodland Heights Amended, Block 3, Lots 5 and 6
Goodland Heights Amended, Block 3, Lots 7-10
Pettit Lots 9 and 10
Pettit Lots 4-6
Exhibit B
TYPE"B" BUFFER
TREES 10' HT.,4' SPR.
TREES CLUSTERED
< 50' ON CENTER
TYPE"B" BUFFER
MULTIPLE STAGGERED
ROWS, HEDGE 5' HT.
10 GAL. CONTAINER
4' ON CENTER, 24"
ON STAGGER, ADDED
SHRUBS FROM OTHER
SITE BUFFER AREAS.
Exhibit C
P/L
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
8' TYP. --j
if
! 10'
if
! 5'
,
I
,
,
10
[1
.9'
6'
15' BUFFER
15' WIDE TYPE "B" BUFFER SECTION A-A
NO PERIMETER BERM OR WALL NTS.
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, PA
CIVIL ENGINEERS. LAND SUIl.VEYORS . J'L\.NNERS . LANOsc;.PE ARCHITECTS
"",;rr"SPW'''S . fOllThl'YUS . N""TlII'O.llT
,.."."...... ",.,--..00 mO.........
..'".."'........""........' "".".,,,,,_......-.. ,'"""'..-........"'.......
WWW.GRADYMlNOR-COM
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE ~..
"'.""DII:
-
o~
SECllON A-A
DECDIlIDI.200a
~.-
-.B
SHE:ET 1 Dr 11
TYPE"B" BUFFER
TREES 1 0' HT.,4' SPR.
TREES CLUSTERED
< 50' ON CENTER
TYPE"B" BUFFER
MULTIPLE STAGGERED
ROWS, HEDGE 5' HT.
10 GAL. CONTAINER
4' ON CENTER 24"
,
ON STAGGER, ADDED
SHRUBS FROM OTHER
SITE BUFFER AREAS.
P/L
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
8' TYP.I
n
! 10'
,
iT
! 5'
3 I
:=11 :
10
-'l1
9'
6'
15' BUFFER
15' WIDE TYPE "B" BUFFER SECTION B-B
PERIMETER BERM, NO WALL N.T.S.
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, PA
miL D1GJNEERS . LAND SURVEYORS' PLANNERS. UlNDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S
8O~IT"I~ . ~TMl'UlS . I<oKrnroKl
(1)01'''.''''' .....1....".. ,.....n-....
""..,--".'."'" "...... ....,,,..,,.......,,~-, ,"""".~~,...,;..,"',....,..
WWW.GRADYMINOP.COM
- -LAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE :?
SECTION B-B ~~-'~
_on
SHEET 2 OF 11
----. -.
2%
-
, TYPE "0" BUFFER
nl TREES 10' HT. 4' SPR.
! TREES CLUSTERED
! < 50' ON CENTER
! 10'
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
6' WIDTH
CONC. WALK
(LOCATION VARIES)
P/L
5'
10' BUFFER
VARIES
10' WIDE TYPE "0" BUFFER SECTION C-C
WITH PERIMETER BERM NTS.
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, PA
avlLmGINEERS . Ll.NDSUIl.VEYORS. PLANNERS. U.NDSCAf'EAR~
""",rr;.snw<1JS . rcotT>.fYU$ . I'OICTlII'OI<T
""l"".'"' ....,,-..- .."".......
SECTION C-C
WWW.GRA/)YMINOROOM
~
.,.
~OO~
-
-
~,-
~-
~~
SHEET 3 Dr 11
l
"
~
~
~
.
.
~
~
~
~
o
~
,
o
TYPE "D" BUFFER
TREES 10' HT., 4' SPR.
TREES CLUSTERED
~ 50' ON CENTER
L ASPHALT PARKING
P/L
I
,
I
,
,
@)
5' ~
10' BUFFER.
10' WIDE TYPE "D" BUFFER SECTION D-D
@ PARKING AREA WITH PERIMETER
BERM, NO WALL
Q~ GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P~A.
avlLE'NGrHEm . LAND SURVEYORS . rUNNERS. LANllSC"'PE^~CflITeCTS
_""........... . roo.T....US . ~Mn!"""T
",,,..,... U""-...... ....,.......
..,....""...-........-.. ....,."''"''',....."..-. ,.........,,_.."'--
WWW.GRADYMINOR..COM
N.T.S.
10'
l
TYPE"D" BUFFER
5' HT. CONTINUOUS
DOUBLE STAGGERED
HEDGE 10 GAL. 4' a.c.
~
us
..-
-
--
--
~-
_ft
sHEE1'4or 11
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE
SECTION D-D
>
.
o
~
~
"
.
I
~
~
o
,
u
u
O.
Z~
::50
1-=
W~
S(/)
= W
~I
~(/)
= ::>
~o:::
0:::
W
I-
'Z
I-W
-lIO
-l-
<{LOZ
SC!)O
o:::Z,;-
OZ -(/)
-w-..ico
O:::W<{::>
WO:::C!)O:::
~OOI
-(/)~(/)
W
W
0:::
I-
~(/)(J)
Imll..
00:::::>
~ll..0
0>-0:::
roOC!)
0:::
W
I-
<{
S (/)
SO.....l
OZ<{
-l<{0:::
-l-l0
<{I-I-
IWI-
(/)S-l
0:::
ll..0
o:::(/)Wo:::
W';-O:::W
LL _WI-
LL~I-Z
::>I(/)W
co- 30
Cn~oz
= (/) (/) 0
WWWo
ll..WWLO
>-0:::0:::
I- I- I- VII
o
W 0:::
0::: 'W
o:::wj:z 0:::
WC!) - W
LL '" Co <{ -
LL'-' 1-0:::0
::>~WZWC!)
CO(/)C!)OI-<{
_ OOZI-
mWw W(/)
= -lI-..iOZ
W~S<{ZO
g:00C!)0=
I-OO:::~,;-~
0:
_0 w
u.
U.
::J
<Il
0
w~
WZ
Z-l
O-l
I-<{
Os
~O
o:::Z
W -
LL<{
LLW
U) ::>0:::
w co<{
"'
<( = Z
> ~O
<(
w WI-
0:
<( ll..Z
z >-W
0
f= 1-1-
z WW
W
t- OO
w
0: S
c(
0
~
-l
~
ll..
1-- :2:
-l
cj<{
.ll..
I-W
IC!)(/)
Co<{D..
~!D::>
'!DO
- <{ 0:::
~00
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES P A
CIVJL ENGINEERS _lAHD SlJltVEYOll ~ PlANNERS. U,NDSCArE "'R'Ol~
-O:;~~~~ . r:;;,T::::J: . "~=T
WWW.OJl.ADYMJNOllCOM
U)
w
"'
<(
>
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE
SECTION E-E
~
.u
..-
~
-
..........-
~-
-.
SHEETSOl"l
TYPE "D"BUFFER
TREES 1 0' HT., 4' SPR.
TREES CLUSTERED
< 50' ON CENTER
6' WIDTH
CONC. WALK
(IF REQUIRED)
3
11
3'
5'
P/L
I
,
~.;;,
~'~
:'" ';;;~"~'
~....Jt..'~'"
~i~,~-
,
,
n
I 10'
,
,
iT
! 5'
,
I
5'
10
11
5'
10' BUFFER -
10' WIDE TYPE liD" BUFFER SECTION F-F
@ DETENTION AREA N.T.S.
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, PA
CIVll EliQItiEUS .. UNO SUlVEYORS" M.J\NNEll.S . LlNDSCAI'E AROfTTECTS
llOt<'u"....os . 1'Ol<T>oIYUS .. l"OUlI....-r
_,..;~... lml-..... .............
""---_.... ..-.. "".....,,~.."",,~
WWW.G/l.4.0YMINOR-COM
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE ~':;';.
SECTlON F-F
..-
-
.-
~-
~-
-,
SJIt:ET6OF 11
TYPE"B" BUFFER
TREES 10' HT.,4' SPR. P/L
I
TREES CLUSTERED ,
I
< 50' ON CENTER ,
,
I
:
3'TYP.
TYPE"B" BUFFER
DOUBLE STAGGERED
ROW HEDGE 5' HT.
10 GAL. CONTAINER T 10'
4' ON CENTER, 5'
24" ON STAGGER
10
11
5' BUFFER
5' WIDE TYPE "B" BUFFER SECTION G-G
NO PERIMETER BERM OR WALL N.T.S.
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE "":;';S
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, PA
avn. ENGlN'EERS. UNO SURVEYORS .. PlJo.NNERS .. U,NOSCAPE J;ItCHrTECTS
_ITAsrw;os .. ...TIIl'..... .. ""'1tT1!I'OkT
"",..".... ~>,,-..... ,"".........
SECTION G-G
JO.CO~
-
-
~-
~-
-,
SHEE1'701" 11
...._..................... ...~,"""......,,~_. ..-.<,...."'...0""
WWW.ORADYM.lNOlLCOM
P/L
I
,
,
I
,
I
TYPE "D" BUFFER -- ~ 5'TYP. r-
TREES 10' HT., 4' SPR~ r
TREES CLUSTERED !
< 50' ON CENTER !
- I 10'
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
10
11
10' BUFFER
10' WIDE TYPE liD" BUFFER SECTION H-H
NO PERIMETER BERM N.T.S.
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIA TES, PA
OYn.E1'IGINEEltS.LANDSI1RVfYORS_PI,..ANNEJ!S0 U.NDSCAI'EARCHlTF.crs
8O~"-All'WIU$ . FOltHonV.'i . wmTllIOOT
"""OI-;~.. ....,-..,.. ,..........
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE "":::.
SECTION H-H
WWW.GItADYMlr>IOIlCJJI.l
""'coDe
-
,-
--
~-
~
SHE!:T80r 11
o
o
o
S
z
o
l-
. I-
0::: ::>
ll..0 coW
O:::~~o:::z>
~~_WWW~
LL~I-I-W",
-, (/)Zo:::'-'
-,I::>WrnZ
co - -l 0 '-' --
= 00 0.....
CO~ Z :2:
= (/)(/)OO:::W
WWW_ WI-
ll..WWO>I
>-O:::O:::LO-l
I- I- I- VI (/) S
(/)
C!)
Z
I-
Z
::5 0
ll.. 0
Z =
0>-0
_(/)C0
I- - .
<{<{-l
0:::0<(
OWC!)
I->-~
(/)W>- ~
WX-l -l
0:::0- <{
W<{~~S
ZWWOO
-l(/)O>Z
W~ll..>O
g5 I (/)(00
I = 0:::
(/)~O
uj
>--'
, z
Z
----r 2
'" 0
W
(/)
Z
o
I-
<{
0:::
f:il 0
"' I-
'" (/)
> W
0:::
W
Z
-l
W
0:::
o
I
(/)
~I
W ~
> en
0 Z w
"'
0::: (/) . 0 '"
I- C!)ll.. >
C!)0:::0::: (/) ro
ZWW <{ Z<{ 0::: ci
~ <{I-I- 0::: 1-0::: Ww ,.:
0 :2:(/)Z 0 (/), I-C!)
. O=>W I- -ll.. ~@
~ W-lO [B Z<{. X-
Wo:::
0 o:::OZ 0::: o:::ZO
~ 'W 0 W(/)~b::?
" I-Wi:o
. ::Co:::t-- ZC!)o:::<{<D
I ~ I- VI -lZWll..C0
~I-I(/)(/)
0 OZI-~~
~ I::5<{Io:::
~ (/)ll..~C0C!)
0
Q. GRADY MINOK& ASSOCIA rES P A
CIVIL ENGlNEEJl.S . u'ND SURVEYORS. rUNNERS. LANOSCAI't: A;~~
""""T~~~r;s . FOUMYU.5 . l'OUlll'Okl "-
""""'~' 'U.,.......'" '...0"......
WWW.GRADYM.lNOR.COM
MAR GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE
~=
~.T.S,-
.IOBt:ODlI::
=..
-~
~,~
=-
~,
SECTION 1-[
SHEET 9 OF 11
TREES CLUSTERED
< 50' ON CENTER
EX. ROCK WALL
4.5' TO 2' HT. VARIES
r
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
C1Vfl ENGINEERS. LAND SU1\VEYORS . ru.NNERS . LANDSCAPE "RCHITECTS
OONfT"'l'~ . fOnWyu< . ~OJi.TIlI'OAT
",.J...;.,.. 11...",..."., ,..",,,.,,,,
WWW.GR.A.DYMJi.lOR..COM
P/L
I
,
,
I
,
,
r+ 3' TYP.
I I
10
11
5' BUFFER
SECTION J-J
10'
N.T.S.
MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE
SECTION J-J
~=
H,T.5o
.lO.~DII:
-
o~
DtCDl8Ol, ~llOI
~-
-..
SHEET 10 OF 11
EXISTING TREES
EXISTING
PLAYGROUND
FENCE
P/L
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
10
[1
5' BUFFER
EXISTING PLAYGROUND SECTION K-K
5' BUFFER N.T.S.
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, PA
OVILB>lGINEW. LANtlSlJI\VEVORS . !'LANNERS -U,NDSC\I'f.ARCIflTECTS
""~rT..SI'W<OS . RJO.TMYUS . NOll.Tl'ro.o.r
u>>,..,.... ""'-..... ....,........
...........""-...... _.. .....,"'''~_.....H ~_. ..."""-...-"'........
WV.'W.GRADYMINQR..COM
MAR GOOD HARBOR PARK VARIANCE E':;';S
SECTION K-K
.oo~
-
~
M~_
~-
-,
SHEET 11 OF 11
EXHIBIT D
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
V A-2008-AR-13671
May 20, 2009
I. The dimensional Variances approved are strictly limited to the landscape buffer width
requirements and side yard setback requirements as depicted on the applicant's
conceptual site plan, entitled "Mar-Good Harbor Park," and its associated cross-
sections, prepared by Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and dated August 2008, as
further restricted below.
2. The ten-foot buffer width granted is limited to the location labeled as cross-section E-
E, as depicted in the conceptual site plan and its associated cross-section included as
Exhibit A, to allow a reduction of the IS-foot wide buffer requirement.
3. The five-foot buffer width granted is limited to the three areas labeled with cross-
section G-G, as depicted in the conceptual site plan and its associated cross-section
included as Exhibit A, to allow a reduction from the IS-foot wide buffer requirement.
4. The five-foot buffer width granted is limited to the location labeled with cross-section
K-K, as depicted in the conceptual site plan and its associated cross-section included
as Exhibit A, to allow a reduction from the 10- foot wide buffer requirement.
5. A five-foot setback Variance shall be permitted for the northernmost covered shelter
and the canoe storage rack, as depicted on the conceptual site plan, to allow a five-
foot side yard setback instead of the required ten-foot side yard setback.
6. All the plant materials required by the LDC for screening and buffering shall be
accommodated in the modified and/or reduced width buffers' respective areas, or may
be relocated to other areas of the site, subject to review and approval by the County
Landscape Architect.
7. Irrespective of that depicted in the cross-section J-J exhibit, a double hedgerow shall
be provided in this buffer, which may be clustered and planted at a minimum height
of 30 inches in order to preserve views.
8. If any of the historic structures across Pettit Drive are removed such that the LDC-
required IS-foot buffer width could be accommodated, then the five-foot buffer width
shall not be permitted.