CCPC Backup 09/17/2009 R
CCPC
REGULAR
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17,
2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORJDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE
WRJTTEN OR GRAPHIC MA TERJALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERJAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRJOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARJNG. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRJA TE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRJOR 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 PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MA Y NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS ~SEPTEMBER 15,2009
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: CU-2009-AR-14231, Peace Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc., represented by Brooke
Gabrielsen of WilsonMiller, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, request a
conditional use for a church, child care center, and private school in the Agriculture Zoning District
pursuant to subsection 2.03.0 I.A.I.c. of the LDC. The subject property is located at 9824 Immokalee
Road, in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa
Zone)
1
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARlNGS
A. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13786, Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. represented by Gina R.
Green, P.E., of Gina R. Green, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use expansion in the Estates (E) zoning
district pursuant to Collier County and Development Code Subsection 2.03.01.B.1.c.1. The proposed
Conditional Use will supplement the existing Resolution Numbers 91-135 and 92-49 by adding a 13,100-
square foot multi-purpose building to be used for a gymnasium, classrooms, youth fellowship and a
kitchen. The subject 5.23 acre property is located at 1620 39th Street S.W., in Section ]4 and 23,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO TV, Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden,
McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use for a communications tower
and the installation of related shelter and equipment in the Estates (E) Zoning District, as specified in
Section 5.05.09 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The approximately 4.77-acre
subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in
Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to 9-C) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
C. Petition: V A-PL2009-37, FLO TV Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky,
Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Variance of 55.7 feet from the 75-foot front yard setback
requirement: and Variances of 22.3 feet and 22.6 feet from the 30.foot eastern and western side yard
setback requirements, respectively, of LDC subsection 4.02.0 I, Table 2.1, Table of Minimum Yard
Requirements for Base Zoning Dislricls, to pelmit 19.3-foot, 7.7-foot and 7.4-foot setbacks, respectively,
for the guy lines and anchors of a communications tower in excess of 75 feet in the Estates (E) Zoning
District. The 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, in Collier County. Florida. (Companion ilem 10 9-B) (Coordinator: John-David Moss,
AICP)
D. Petition: PUDA-PL-09-110, DiVosta Homes, LP, represented by Chris Hasty of Pulte Homes, Inc. and
Margaret Perry, AICP of WilsonMiller, Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Winding Cypress PUD,
adopted in Ordinance No. 02-35 and amended in Ordinance 02-48, to alter the side yard setback between
structures on Tract A as depicted on the PUD Master Plan but maintain a minimum of 10 feet between
structures. The subject 1,928* acres is located in Sections 26, 34, 35, Township 50 South, Range 26
East and Sections 2 and 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator:
Kay Deselem, AICP)
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
8/6/09 cepe Agenda/Ray 8eIJows/cr
2
AGENDA ITEM 9-A
Comr County
- ~--
-
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING: SEPTEMBER 19, 2009
SUBJECT: CU-2008-AR-13786, UNITY FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner:
Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, Inc.
PO Box 990639
Naples, FL 34116
Agent:
Gina R. Green, P.E.
Gina R. Green, P.A.
3310 1st Avenue N.W.
Naples, FL 34]20
REOUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for
Conditional Use No. 1 of the Estates (E) Zoning District, as provided for in Section
2.03.01.B.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), to permit an expansion
of an existing church by adding a 13,100 square-foot multi-purpose building to be used for a
gymnasium, classrooms, youth fellowship and a kitchen.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject 5.23 acre property is located on the east side of 39tl' Street S.W. at 1620 39th Street
S.W., lying in line with the extension of Green Boulevard across the CR 951 Canal and Collier
Boulevard, and approximately 330 feet north of 17th Avenue S.W., in Tract 165, Unit 27 of
Golden Gate Estates and in Section 14 and 23, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. (See location map on the following page)
CU-2008-AR-13786
August 25, 2009
Page 1 of 11
I I
1----- --,~ - C-- --....-...------ i
I
I
,
I l- -
-- " f-- ~~_. .-.- ,,~--- ~
0
I w- ....
~I ,::::1;:( : w ~ N ~
wO 'I-- =>
---- 0
-- ~~-- ---- ~ :j
, .., ,
>
e----T \ ----.
I I
/ i
> /
, i / I
: ,
, i / I
I /
I , I I
J I [ / ~
~, I /
., 133WS ~" , /
,---- ~
l~I-IVJ N .'
{L~6 ^--~J) - .---- - - "
O~V^3.LrlOB ~3rllOJ "~IJJJliluJillllT ~3mOJ/
I - "---,..--
0 I -r ~ L~" / "
..__J ; ( u
, ,
_1 <0 .. 0 i U ' I =o::JIIJ I I'
N 0 ::>
::> 0.
=> 0. 0 ,- -'!"' 0- li 1-;1fHttB~
, I ' 0' 9 ~
. " I,,+~~ ;LL_:> ~
,
, - __u_ 'M' II~n ' '
, > 1------1LU.
, 'M-S U3lilSlSl. ; ~,
llVOS OllDN /
'-.-'
~
~ ~ ~
!
,
~
" ~ ~
~ ~
l
~ ;
",re,
-~~
^
,
,I
III
II
,I
, ,
~I
1
,
I
,
I
,
+
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
,~ i
1
,
I
II
> ,
-- ~ ~
,
,
~
.,
q
I
~
",
::' ~ ~
"~
..... Z
00
w-
~~
00
~g
,
,
II, ,
;i .I ': il~
1!~3
F -
I
~ ~ ~
~ ; "I ,~
<< l3 ;f:'j.. ~
!!: ,'tr') "
z~j:<3 11'1--'"
; i1 I, ~j/~~~ !\~- ';!I;ll';:i!i: ,l
-or r ., I 'I, '"
,,'jlj J t ",:,11 '
n ~~ ~ r !~ 12lJ- !~._.
,~""~~" ~lW' l ,'-rl
, '
~~""
~ ~:s
"
,
0
g" ~
,
N~i 5
i ;
,
'.
;c ! ~
I
Sll
0'
'1
,"
~;
~*
",.-'~~I
Q ~.
.,
!.
,
~~ ~
" ~ ~ ~ ~r!
~~ i
" ~
J\
"
~~
"' ~ ~
II
;,,--t
'>' j
"',__1
__ __~~J__ _
'at.':.'iN~
"' ~ ~ ~
-- 0; ~ ~
~~~
1,-
~anr
I I't
~ ~~
~ ~..
'"~~~
~~~
",
,-'
!
, "
,F"~o-~~:~~-~,-/~~_
NQU<JH<ld
...~'i'W"",
a..
<(
~
CJ
z
z
o
N
~I
0:
'"
,
ro
o
o
N
:0'
U
"
I
zi
0'
_I
e:1
~I
a..
<(
~
z
o
I-
<(
U
o
-1
~
-l*l..:v~oot
~'3l1$=
'N33I1tj-:;j tfNlD
'~I ~if:~1
:11ft SNOISIA3l:1
~
IIllO"","""""'-,,,,"
A~l_n...r.>l';;::;: WO
=~~~
.'
~1;:~
2; ~I &1; ~:
s~~~l ~i
~ ~:I!~It:.. 0">
~ j~~il =~
~ ~M~lr ~~
~!3l~<'l
:':.c:J <l\I <ill '4
~~~p~
n~~q
.... ~ ~ it ... "I
~ . -
<l
~ ~.. ~
~~~ii ·
~ ~ n fI.1
..a :: ::: ~ '" ... II
~
[J..
.. .
.. .
<l
<l <l
IQ ...~IQ...
t.~~;t~~q~<;:I~::; Ii
~od<;Sdd <:l... t wi
J! ., ::;;;(0.......
. ~~l ~ j
.. giJ Ui~~~l ~
. ~ ~B '~i~~ I~
~ ia.a2..c q
'i i!]~~l~~!i. l
'~8 d.s~.~ ~a "l
1-0>1 & i~ ~ ... 1I
<lmhi!~ui}~!l
-~'fj
- ~ z
... ...- ..... ~ 0
&~- ~'"':....~-' d i=:lll
~rdd-<::o d ~E-
.! c 5;'!o1tlli
.~ ~~~.
i" o"~J!
.. ti~;;: glll?~t
.t ~ii' ~!""
" f d'"l~ ~~~~i
"a-i"i!'~ ~j~;;~
..'\""'...li.... 'S:~ >~~
!:i.~ ~Q. it.... g \i.tlrl
!t~ .r~Il.;!c: It: ~
<l
.
n
~ "
" .
~ -
.
t ~
~ ~
~ "
d
.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
..
~
~
.
~
>
~
o
"
.
~
~
~
..
i
.
" !
~ ~
~ ~
. . ~
i ~~i
: i~~~
~ ~~~~
: it~~
~ ~~I~
i/ ~~~~
i~~~I~
~~jiL~
~~4ol~
}ij~lli;
)~~~~i~i
\*B~~~q
'" .
......:... "i...
<l
~
.
.
~
~
~
o
.
~
.
.
.
e
z
e
z
o
F
~
~
.
~
o
~
,
~
~
o
F
~o
!.
8~
o~
~Jll
Bg
~
.
I
~ii
PURPOSE/ DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner seeks a Conditional Use approval to expand an existing Conditional Use allowing
a 300 seat church and church related facilities. The expansion proposes to add a 13,100 square-
foot multi-purpose building. This multi-purpose building will contain a gymnasium, classrooms,
offices and a kitchen. It will be used for Sunday school classes and youth fellowship. There are
no anticipated daycare or weekday school activities. The petitioner states that the number of
church members will not increase as a result of the proposed Conditional Use.
The original Conditional Use (Resolution Number 91-135) was approved on February 5, 1991.
It allowed for the construction of the original church and church related facilities. The original
Conditional Use was later extended on January 28, 1992 (Resolution Number 92-49).
As previously mentioned, the proposed Conditional Use for church uses proposes to expand the
current church by adding a multi-purpose building. The multi-purpose building will host
between 100 to 150 children for educational classes on Sunday and Wednesday during Church
worship hours. These worship hours are between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Sunday, and between 6
p.m. and 9 p.m. on Wednesday. There may be occasional special programs such as recreational
sports activities.
The Conceptual Site Plan (see previous page) dated July 24, 2009 depicts the existing 6,524
square-foot Church, 38 parking spaces, 2 loading spaces, water management areas along with the
proposed 13,100 square-foot multi-purpose building that is part of this Conditional Use
application. The Conceptual Site Plan also depicts IS-foot wide landscape buffers along the
north property boundary and along the street right-of-way boundary. Preserve, wetland and
natural areas depicted along the east and south property boundaries contribute towards the 15-
foot wide landscape buffers. Along the east property line there is also a .97 acre 170-foot wide
FPL (Florida Power and Light) easement. Along the south property line are .26 acres of preserve
area. In the south east corner of the site are SFWMD (South Florida Water Management
District) Jurisdictional wetlands. Site ingress/egress is depicted from 39th Street S.W. Water and
sewer service will be provided by a private well and septic system.
To date, along 39th Street S.W., one other Conditional Use to the south of this Church has been
approved for the Golden Gate Assembly of God. Another Conditional use to the north of this of
the subject Church has been approved for the Assembly of Christian Churches.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Undeveloped, vegetated site, future extension of Green Boulevard, zoned Estates
Single-family residence, zoned Estates
Single-family residence, zoned Estates
39th Street S.W., a 60-foot wide right-of-way, then the 95 I canal, then Collier
Boulevard, a 6 lane divided right-of-way.
GU-2008-AR-13786
August 25, 2009
Page 4 of 11
AERIAL MAP
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed this request and offered the following comments:
Future land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property, as identified on the Future Land Use
Map of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), is within the Estates - Mixcd Use District,
Residential Estates Subdistrict land use designations.
The "Conditional Uses Subdistrict" in the Estates ~ Mixed Use District within the GGAMP
contains specific provisions for Essential Services Conditional Uses (CUs), CUs on Golden Gate
Parkway and Collier Boulevard, Transitional CUs adjacent to Neighborhood Centers,
Transitional CUs [as buffcrs between residential and certain non-residential uses], and Special
Exceptions to Conditional Use (CU) Locational Criteria [for certain excavation activities and
temporary model homes]. The subject site does not qualify under any of the provisions in the
Conditional Uses Subdistrict.
A Provisional Use (PU) for the church was approved on February 5, 1991. The Certificate of
Occupancy was issued on August 13, 1992 for the Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church (4,698
square feet). The PU previously approved for the subject property did not include the requested
13, I 00 square foot multi-purpose accessory structure. Accessory uses are authorized for
CU-2008-AR-13786
August 25, 2009
Page 5 of 11
permitted and conditional uses both in the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development
Code, because the existing use was authorized through the previously approved PU (now called a
Conditional Use (CU)).
The GGAMP was adopted on the same date the original PU was approved for the subject site,
but per State law, did not go into effect on that date. That original PU was approved pursuant to
the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), which had no locational restrictions for Provisional Uses.
Two longstanding staff interpretations of FLUE Policy 5.9 (General Plan Interpretation GP-37-I
and GP-42-1, rendered in 1992 and 1993, respectively), both based upon a previous Board's
interpretation of that policy, would allow for additional development to occur for the same use
(church) or related use (e.g. church-operated daycare), so long as it is located on the same
property (same legal description). This interpretation has been implemented on numerous
occasions by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area.
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review
staff as part oftheir review of the petition in its entirety.
FLUE Objective 7 states: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward
Betler 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
jj-onting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without
violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code (LDC). [The subject
property is not located on an arterial or collector road. The conceptual site plan for Ihis
application provided an 82-joot wide "Right-or-Way" reservation along the northern property
linejiJr thefuture extension of Green Boulevard (Rural Major Collector Road).]
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The
conceptual site plan idenlifies that the two exisling accessways on to 39th Slreet S. W will
continue 10 be used, and that an internal looped circulation patlern will be provided through
these two accessways.]
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their
interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land
use type. [To the east and south are properlies zoned Estates (E), and each is developed with a
single~ramily dwelling. To the west are a .\'Ireel and Ihen a canal. To the north is a property
approvedfiJ/' a church use through PUjiJr Assembly otChristian Churches. It is statt's opinion
thai providing an interconnect to ony oj'rhe abZltling pmperlies is not feasible or appropriate.]
CU-2008-AR-13786
August 25, 2009
Page 6 of 11
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. [This
policy is mostly not applicable given the existing and proposed use. The site does provide open
space, as depicted on the conceptual site plan. The conceptual site plan provides for internal
sidewalks from the parking area to the existing church and the fUlure 13, 100 square-foot multi-
purpose accessory building. No sidewalks have been provided along 39th Street S. W, as well as,
no interconnecting sidewalk has been provided between the existing sidewalk and a sidewalk
along 39th Street S. W No deviation is requesled from the LDe requirement to provide
sidewalks, therefore sidewalks will have to be provided as required by the Land Development
Code.]
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed conditional use may be
deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient
capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject
application can be deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Existing Impacts:
The traffic analyzed in the TIS for this church expansion does not represent a net increase in
trips. The TIS confirms that the additional multi-purpose building square footage is an ancillary
use to the church and does not expand the total seating of the worship hall.
County Road 951 Impacts:
The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is link 32. I, Collier Boulevard (CR-
951), between Green Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. The project generates 4 p.m. peak
hour trips on a weekday, resulting in I p.m. peak hour, peak direction trip being distributed on
CR-95l. This single trip represents a 0.04 percent impact on CR-95 I. This segment of CR-95 I
currently has a remaining capacity of 363 trips, and is currently at LOS "D" (Level of Service) as
reflected by the 2008 AUIR (Annual Urban Inventory Report).
A Sunday analysis of the church expansion has been included in the Traffic Study as well. The
project produces 77 Sunday peak hour trips, 20 of which compose the peak Sunday impact on
CR-951 in the north bound direction. As a requirement of the concentrated weekend trip
generation, a preliminary analysis of operational conditions was performed. The potential
requirement for improvements to the intersection of 17th Avenue S.W. at 39th Street S.W. was
identified in the report, and will be investigated in detail at the time of SDP application.
No subsequent links beyond this segment of Golden Gate Parkway are significantly impacted,
thus no further analysis was required for p.m. peak hour impacts.
Long Range Transportation Plan Compliance:
This site is located along the future Grecn Boulevard Extension corridor. As such, the County
has requested that the applicant reserve (for future purchase by Collier County) an 82-foot wide
future right-of-way along the northern portion ofthe property.
GU-2008-AR-13786
August 25, 2009
Page 7 of 11
ANAL YSIS:
Before any Conditional Use recommendation can be offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA), the Collier County Planning Commission must make findings that: I) granting approval
of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest; 2) all specific requirements
for the individual Conditional Use are met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made
concerning the following matters, where applicable:
1. Section 2.03.01.B.1.c.1. of the LDC permits conditional uses in the Estates zoning
district.
The request for Church related uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Estates zoning
district, subject to the standards and procedures established in section 10.08.00, conditional
uses procedures, of the LDC.
2. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan.
This request is consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and, with the conditions
proposed by staff, this project will be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the
Land Development Code (LDC).
3. 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.
Ingress and egress to the subject property would be limited to two existing driveways onto
39th Street S.W. The minimum parking requirements for public assembly places contained in
LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space Requirements, are 3 per 7 seats or 118
parking spaces.
The adjacent roadway network will have suflicient capacity to accommodate this project
within the five-year planning period. Sidewalks are required to be provided along 38th Street
S.W. and along the future Green Boulevard in accordance with the LDC. Also, pedestrian
access has been provided on all four sides of the Church building and the multi-purpose
building.
The Fire Code official's office has no objection to the ingress/egress, and will review the Site
Development Plan (SDP) upon its submission to ensure compliance with applicable fire
codes.
4. The effect the Conditional Usc would havc on neighboring properties In relation to
noise, glare, economic or odor effects.
If approved, the proposed addition of a multi-purpose building to the existing Church should
have minimal impact on neighboring properties in relation to glare, economic or noise
effects. Activities at the subject property are generally concentrated inside the church and
multi-purpose buildings. To mitigate fl)r any noise or glare impacts to the existing and future
CU-2008-AR-13786
August 25,2009
Page 8 of 11
neighbors, the applicant will provide a IS-foot wide Type B landscape buffer along the north
property boundary. Adjacent to the east and south boundaries a IS-foot wide Type B
landscape buffer along with 28 to 21 I feet of native and wetland vegetation will be provided.
Along the right-of-way a IS-foot wide Type D landscape buffer will be provided.
s. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district.
As previously noted, the proposed multi-purpose building will be located on the same lot as
the existing church. Due to this location, and the provision of the required vegetative buffers,
any impacts on surrounding neighbors would be minimized and compatibility with the
surrounding properties insured.
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations as outlined in this
staff report (should not) be recommended for approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
Pursuant to Ordinance Number 2009-32, the EAC did not review this petition because the site is
under the size threshold (10 acres) to require an Environmental Impact Statement. As previously
stated, a .26 acre preserve area representing 10 percent of the existing native vegetation on site
would be located adjacent to the south property line.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
Synopsis provided by Cheri Rollins, Administrative Assistant and edited by Nancy Gundlach,
Principal Planner:
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on July 23, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the
Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, Naples, Florida. Nine people from the public attended,
as well as the applicant's team, Gina Green, P.E., of Gina Green, P.A., and county staff.
Ms. Green presented an overview of the requested Conditional Use (CU) expansion, which is to
add a 13,100 square foot multi-purpose building directly behind the current Church building.
Of those in attendance, two residents, Keith Walsh and James Wayne had concerns with the
vegetation removal that would occur along the east property line adjacent to their property. They
asked if all exotic vegetation would be removed, and Ms. Green responded yes. The property
owners further expressed their concern that they would be losing their screening when the exotic
vegetation is removed. Ms. Green responded that the church would replant what the code
requires and that she could not commit to do more at this time. Ms. Green recommended that
Mr. Wayne and Mr. Walsh meet with the church officials directly to determine what could be
done with the buffer screening.
The meeting ended at approximately 6:30 p.m.
CU-2008-AR-13786
August25,2009
Page 9 of 11
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for CU-2008-AR-13786 Unity Faith
Mission Baptist Church revised on August 24,2009.
RECOMMENDA nON:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward a recommendation of
approval for Petition CU-2008-AR-13786 Unity Faith Mission Baptist Church to the Board of
Zoning Appeals, subject to the following conditions:
I. The Conditional Use is limited to what is shown on the site plan, identified as
"Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Gina R. Green, P.A., dated July 24,2009. The final
design must be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and
regulations.
2. The uses shall be limited to Church related uses. Day care, weekday private school and
retail church store uses are prohibited. (Note: these uses have not been presented in the
Traffic Study and therefore have not been analyzed as part of this Conditional Use.)
3. The Church shall not expand Sunday worship services into the multi-purpose building
and shall not increase the seating capacity of the multi-purpose building (educational
classes shall not be precluded by this stipulation as they are considered part of the Sunday
trip generation shown in ITE 8th edition).
4. The County shall not be responsible for the construction of a noise wall along the future
Green Boulevard extension adjacent to the Church. If a noise wall is sought by the
Church, it shall be required to be at the Church's expense.
CU-2008-AR-13786
Augus125,2009
Page 10 of 11
PREPARED BY:
't ',IJJ ()' V. i rnl~,ol Il) ?Q;f)
NANC GlJNDLACH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
DEPA' TMr,lN1 OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIE .
/
REVIEWED BY:
12' 1
//1
V. ,~.?~ ~_. 2'f;> -o'}
RA YM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~Yn./~~ P/U~/O'7
vSUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
~T, ADM ISTRATOR ~1il
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Collier County Planning Commission:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Staff Report for the September 19,2009 Collier County Planning Commission Meeting
Tentatively scheduled for the November 10, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
GU-2008-AR-13786
August 25, 2009
Page 11 of 11
ITEM 9.B
~
YOU RECEIVED THE BACKUP MATERIAL FOR THIS
PETITION, CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO lV, INC., IN YOUR
PACKET FOR THE AUGUST 20TH MEETING.
THE SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT IS ATTACHED
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
-
Co.". Cou.nty
- - --
- ~
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING: SEPTEMBER 17,2009
SUBJECT: PETITION CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO TV INCORPORATED AND
COMPANION VARIANCE PETITION V A-PL-2009-037
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner:
FLO TV, Inc.
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92 I 21
Agent:
James J. Porter, Esq./KimberIy J. Madison, Esq.
Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A
401 East Jackson Street, Ste. 2700
Tampa, FL 33602
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) consider an application for
Conditional Use Number 3 for a communications tower and related mechanical equipment
shelter in the Estates (E) Zoning District, as specified in Section 5.05.09 of the Collier County
Land Development Code (LDC); and consider the following after-the-fact Variances LDC
subsection 4.02.01, Table 2.1, Table of Minimum Yard Requirements for Base Zoning Districts,
for the guy lines and anchors of a communications tower in excess of 75 feet in the E Zoning
District:
I. A Variance of 55.7 feet from the 75-foot front yard setback requirement permit a 19.3-
foot setback;
2. A Variance of22.3 feet from the 30-foot eastern side yard setback requirement to permit
7.7 -foot setback; and
3. A Variance of22.6 feet from the 30-foot western side yard setback requirement to permit
a 7.4- foot setback.
CU 2008-AR-14085 and VA-PL-2009-037
-~_'~--_."_.~--_.".".-.._,--,..~_-_.,.,",_"""""____",,___,_"_'_'_',__'e'_"
.'
PURPOSEillESCRIPTlON OF PROJECT:
These companion items were originally scheduled to be heard by the CCPC on August 20, 2009.
However, due to several issue raised by CCPC members prior to the hearing, which required
further research by staff, the applicant requested a continuance in order to allow staff additional
time to investigate these concerns. The specific questions posed by the commissioners are listed
below, with staff s responses highlighted in bold font:
I. Who owned the site when the second tower was erected (and the old one not dismantled),
as required by the approved Conditional Use, Resolution No. 93-219?
The applicant, then operating under the name Renda Broadcasting, acquired the
site in January of 1999; and the SDP for the erection of the new tower (and the
dismantling of the old), pursuant to Resolution No. 93-219, was approved in June of
1999. Therefore, the applicant was actually the owner of the site at the time the new
tower was built and the old tower was illegally left standing. As such, the current
conditions on the site are not pre-existing as previously stated in criteria b. on page
three of the Variance staff report, and in the "Purpose/Description of Project" on
page two of the Conditional Use staff report.
2. Can the old tower remain on the site as part of this Conditional Use application?
As mentioned, Resolution No. 93-219 provided for the replacement of an existing
tower. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance No. 91-102, Section 2.6.35.5.1.3, which was in
effect at the time of the prior Conditional Use, a non-conforming tower, such as the
subject tower, could be voluntarily reconstructed in any zoning district subject to
the Conditional Use process. The title of Conditional Use Resolution No. 93-219
indicated that it was indeed to provide for a replacement. Under Section 1.8.8 of
Ordinance No. 91-102, after non-conforming towers are constructed under
Conditional Use authorization, they shall be deemed to have a Conditional Use
permit. However, because the structure was never actually "reconstructed" after the
1993 Conditional Use was approved, the old tower would technically be considered
an illegal use. As such, it is staffs opinion that it could not become legitimized as
part of this Conditional Use unless it also had an essential service (i.e. governmental
use) as its primary user, as now required by the LDC for towers in the E zoning
district.
3. LDC Section 5.05.09. G.3 allows standalone communications towers with Conditional
Use approval, provided the tower is owned by, or leased to, an essential service that is the
primary user. What is the definition of "primary user"?
While there is no definition in the LDC, staff has historically defined the primary
user as the governmental entity that must remain on the tower for as long as the
tower exists. Therefore, while other commercial users' are free to use the tower and
then relocate their antennae to other towers as needed, the governmental entity
must always remain or else the tower must be disassembled.
CU 2008-AR-/4085 and VA-PL-201J9,1J37
4. What is the height limitation for communications towers in the E zoning district?
Essential service towers may be allowed to any height as required for the use at its
particular location. It should also be noted that Resolution No. 93-219 did not
restrict the height of the replacement tower on the site.
5. What is the required "collapse zone" for the tower?
Normally, the required collapse zone for towers over 185 feet is 2.5 times the tower's
height from any adjoining residential zoning districts. However, essential service
towers are exempted from this requirement.
6. Aren't lights required for the subject towers since they are in excess of 150 feet?
Yes. The project was reviewed and approved by the Collier Mosquito Control
District, and the towers would be required to maintain either solid red beacon or
dual mode lights, pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards.
7. How close may the two towers on the site be to one another?
The co-location of towers on a single site is preferred and even encouraged by the
LDC; and the structures may be located as close to each other as technically
feasible, provided that the failure of one tower would not cause the failure of, or
present an unacceptable risk to, any other tower on the site.
8. Do tower sites need to be fenced?
According to the LDC, only the towers' bases, guy anchors, outdoor equipment and
accessory structures need to be fenced, not the entire property. As such, staff has
included a condition of approval requiring the guy line anchors to be fenced since
they are not shown to be on the site plan.
9. Shouldn't the Variances granted be specifically for each of the five encroaching guy line
anchors rather than just the three most offending ones?
There are six guy line encroachments overall, involving five guy line anchors that
affect three setback yards. Normally staff just requests Variances for the ones that
encroach the most into each of the three setback yards since, for example, if a
setback of only 7.7 feet is approved in the eastern setback yard (as depicted in the
Master Plan) then the offending 8A-foot and 13.7-foot guy anchors in this yard
would be automatically rendered lawful as well since they encroach even less than
7.7 feet. While it's true that this would ultimately grant the property owner the right
to relocate the other two guy lines a mere 7.7 feet from the property boundary, the
applicant's justification for the after-the-faet Variances in the first place was
because the anchors could not be moved without jeopardizing the integrity of the
CU 2008-AR-14085 and VA-PL-2009,037
'"._-'~._-_._--,-~_._..__.,--~.~,--~_.
towers. Nevertheless, staff is amenable to stipulating the precise setback of each guy
line anchor, as noted in the conditions of approval.
10. Are communications towers routinely inspected by the County?
According to LDC 5.05.09.G.14, guyed towers exceeding 185 feet are to be inspected
every two years by a qualified engineer or other qualified professional, and any
recommended repairs are to be made without delay. The report of the inspection is
required to be filed with the County Manager no later than December 1 of the
applicable inspection year, and if such report recommends repairs, a letter verifying
that the repairs have been made is also required to be submitted to the County
Manager subsequent to their completion. The LDC further states that the County
has no responsibility regarding such repairs and maintenance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition CU-
2008-AR-14085 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of
approval, subject to the following stipulations:
I. The Conditional Use is limited to what is shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, identified
as "Overall Site Plan," prepared by Black and Veatch, and dated September 28,2007, as
revised through April 9, 2009. The site plan noted is conceptual in nature for Conditional
Use approval only. The final design must be compliance with all applicable federal, state,
and county laws and regulations.
2. The towers on the site shall be owned by or leased to a governmental entity and the
primary uses of the tower shall be for this entity's government-related purposes.
3. Maximum height of the two towers on the site shall be limited to 455 feet, including
antennae, lightening rods and other appurtenances.
4. Development on the site shall be restricted to 3,359 square feet of impervious area.
5. All guy line anchors shall be fenced since pursuant to LDC 5.05.09.G.12.
Staff also recommends that the CCPC forward Petition V A-PL-2009-037 to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval, subject to the following stipulation:
1. The Variances granted shall be strictly limited to the existing front and side yard
encroachments of the guy lines and their support anchors, as depicted in the
applicant's submitted survey, dated September 18.2008, included as Exhibit A.
,
c~ 2008-AR,/4085 and VA-PL,2009,037
\
ITEM 9. C.
YOU RECEIVED THE BACKUP MATERIAL FOR THIS
PETITION, VA-PL-2009-37, FLO TV, INC., IN YOUR PACKET
FOR THE AUGUST 20TH MEETING AND NO NEW MATERIAL
HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED.
AGENDA ITEM 9-D
eo1/er ~unty
- ~
-
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 17,2009
SUBJECT:
PUDA-PL2009-110, WINDING CYPRESS PUD
PROPERTY OWNER &APPLICANT/AGENTS:
Owner/Applicant
Agent:
DiV osta Homes, LP
9240 Estero Park Commons Boulevard
Estero, FL 33928
Margaret Perry AICP
Wilson Miller
3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34105
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a minor
amendment to the Winding Cypress Planned Unit Development (PUD) to revise the property
development regulations for the portion of the project known as Verona Walk. The applicant is
proposing to change Table I of Section 3 of the PUD Document as it relates to patio and zero lot
line unit side setbacks in a particular area of Verona Walk (Tract A of the Winding Cypress
PUD).
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject 1,928* acres (the entire Winding Cypress PUD) is located in Sections 26, 34, 35,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East and Sections 2 and 3, along the eastern side of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) south of Sabal Palm Road in Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. (see illustration on the follOWing page).
PURPOSEillESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The subject property was originally rezoned from Agricultural (A) to PUD with the adoption of
Ordinance No.99-93. That ordinance was repealed and replaced by Ordinance No. 02-35. The
PUD was subsequently amended to correct scrivener errors in Ordinance 02-48. The subject
property is also part of the Winding Cypress DRI, which is governed by Resolution No. 99-467
PUDA-PL2009-110, Windin9 Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 1 of 15
I~'-
,~ I
.
z
o
Wo-
O-",
-0
Wg
.
.
..
l
i
~I
"j
.
i
~I
i
.
't
I
.
. .
I
I
! I,~"..... .
-T---'
I I
I I
I
j
I '
I,
ei,
~l
.
o ~I
"I
I
~L_
IlYJSOllON / ~
-
cnl "
!c-'-J 0- z i
00
" -' ~S
, ,- 00 ,
I "'0 L
<L~ ,~
_--1_ 0 i
l ,
"
I ,~ ,
-.J ~~, . .
;
r " i 1
0 -'
,
"
:ij:l
I! d
" " i ,
". l'j '"
-" I
h- !!
, "
, l
1;1'" ~ ~'
01'; ,
- jZ!\l It
!i
^
Iii
.,.
"
,
I
;
('''''~sJ
O....-A3lnoa ~31'1OO
"
,
Ii
gi
,
"
~I
i ~~
, -,
I 0
l
,
~'L
(9
Z
Z
o
N
~I
0:
'"
'"
o
o
N
-'
"-
C3
::J
"-
",
z
o
....
....
w
"-
a..
<(
~
z
o
l-
e:(
U
o
--l
(DRI Development Order No. 99-4) which was amended in Resolution No. 02-302 (DRI DO No.
02-01) and again in Resolution No 06-18. This project is approved for a total of 2,300
residential units on 448 acres as well as other uses such as a village center with 30,000 square
feet of retail, office and recreational facilities. Also approved are 18 holes of golf and a
clubhouse. As noted on page I, the total project size is 1,928* acres.
The petitioner explains the proposed minor amendment to Ordinance No. 02-35 in the Narrative
Statement quoted in part below:
Tract A of the Winding Cypress PUD, known as Verona Walk, has been platted in
large part, and homes have been built and received their Certificates of Occupancy.
Development standards for Tract A, found in Table 1 of Subsection 3.5 of the PUD
Document, were written for model types in existence at that time.
A new model has been introduced in Verona Walk, in which air conditioning units
are placed on the side of the home rather than in front. As a result of this
amendment, the distance between structures of a minimum of 10 feet will be
maintained, but the side yard setbacks may be more flexible.
It should be noted that for a minor amendment to a PUD ordinance, staff only reviews the
proposed change and not the entire PUD document for consistency and compatibility with the
Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the Land Development Code (LDC).
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING FOR THE WINDING CYPRESS PUD:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Sabal Palm Road, then various sized tracts (most are I -5 acres), with a zoning
designation of Rural Agricultural (A) which are used for agricultural and homestead
purposes
A 500*-acre Agricultural zoning designated tract that is part of the proposed Toll-
Rattlesnake PUDIDRI; approximately 640 acres of state-owned preserve lands, with a
zoning designation of Rural Agricultural (A); and 688*- acre Naples Reserve Golf
Club, which was approved at a density of I .67units per acre with a zoning designation
ofRPUD
US 41, and a 66*-acre parcel controlled by Rookery Bay, with a zoning designation of
Rural Agricultural (A)
An undeveloped I36*-acre tract owned by the City of Marco Island, with a zoning
designation of Rural Agricultural (A); the FaIling Water Beach Resort, a mixed use
project on 74* acres which was approved with a residential density of 6.5 units per
acre with a zoning designation of PUD; a strip of Hs acre parcels along US 4 I with
zoning designations of Rural Agricultural (A); and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and
then Lely Resort, which is a mixed use project and DRI that was approved at a density
of 1.67units per acre with a zoning designation of RPUD
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 2 of 15
Aerial Photo (subject property depiction is approximate)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject site is located in the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict as identified on the county Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the OMP. This
subdistrict is intended to "provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and
the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5 percent of the Urban
Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximwn density of 1.5 units per
gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one dwelling unit per acre
from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District...."
Ordinance No. 2002-35, which amended Ordinance No. 91-102, provides for a maximum of
2,300 dwelling units on 1,928 acres of land or 1.2 dwelling units per acre in the Winding Cypress
PUD and includes a Village Center that permits limited commercial uses. As such, this use and
density are found consistent with the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. The Village Center is
consistent with the PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict in the FLUE.
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 3 of 15
This amendment proposes no increases in density and/or intensity; no change to the list of
approved uses is proposed; the amount and configuration of open space will remain the same;
and the availability of improvements and facilities will not change if this amendment is
approved. Therefore, staff concludes that the proposed amendment to the Winding Cypress PUD
may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map.
Transportation Element: Transportation staff has reviewed the proposed amendment for
consistency with the Transportation Element of the GMP and recommends that this petition be
found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the GMP Transportation Element.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has
evaluated the proposed PUD amendment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not
required for this petition. The changes proposed in this amendment do not affect any
environmental issues. This petition was deemed consistent with the GMP in the review of the
most recent PUD rezone; that analysis remains germane.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as
this proposed PUD amendment. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding
of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency
with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and
staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in
the GMP discussion. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP Transportation
Element as previously discussed. Therefore, staff recommends that the petition be found
consistent with the overall 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 Land Development Code
(LDC) Subsection 1O.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to
as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.03.05.1, Nature of Requirements of Planning
Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to
support the CCPe's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to
support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these
subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review
Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
docwnents to address any environmental concerns. This petition was not required to submit an
EIS nor was a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) required pursuant
to LDC section 10.02.02 2 (a) (b) (c). The petition does not propose any changes that affect
environmental issues, thus Environmental Services staffrecommends approval.
TransDortation Review: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed the petition and has not
voiced any opposition or provided any comments.
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 4 of 15
Utilitv Review: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following
comments: The Utilities Department has no objection to this amendment. No changes are
proposed that would impact the utilities provision; no additional utilities are required nor are
there changes proposed within this application.
Enrdneerinl!/Water Manal!ement: The Collier County Engineering staff has not objected to the
proposed minor amendment.
Affordable Housinl! Review. The Housing & Human Services statThas not reviewed this petition
as the proposed amendment will not affect housing issues that may have been previously
reviewed and approved. The petitioner has not volunteered to contribute to any affordable
housing funds.
Zoninl! Review. Staff evaluated the amendment proposed in light of any changes to approved
uses and/or their intensities and/or densities; the development standards such as building heights,
setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass; building location and orientation; the amount and
type of open space and its location; and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed uses as part
of the initial rezone and previous amendment requests.
Changes to the development standards are proposed therefore additional analysis of those issues
is warranted for this amendment request. The petitioner is revising the side yard setback distance
for Patio or Zero Lot Line dwellings as shown on the proposed Ordinance. The table references
footnote 5 to explain what is proposed: That footnote states the following:
Side yard setback shall he either ()' on one side and 1 ()' on the other, or 3' 1" on one
side and 6 '11" on the other. For those structures to be construction within the hatched
area of Tract A as devicted on Ihe attached Exhibit C. side vard setback shall be either
()' on one side and 10' on the other. or a minimum of'3 '1 " as lonl! as the total distance
between structures is a minimum of 1 0 feet.
The underlined language is the proposed (new) language. The first sentence is the existing
requirement for Tract A parcels. To illustrate how the new setbacks will function, the petitioner
has provided an exhibit, entitled 'Typical Patio or Zero Lot Line Home Side Yard Setback Detail
in Tract A." A portion of that document has been reproduced on the next page for ease of
reference.
Staff is of the opinion that the uses are still compatible with the surrounding area and this project
can be deemed consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4.
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 5 of 15
r'R&,R '(.-.HO S~CK
. (T'iP)
LOT A.
.., r --,
I I ". I
I 1,0'" i I
I I I
I I I
I I I
J.' 1"
r i-t....) I
I
: LOT B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L________.J
VARr,. SE!"'(U.(:f(
<(Y.
or *",V9.1DtT
.lIQJE;:
SEPAA*-TION ~EN S'MlJCTURES
SW.lL l.KIT iBE LDS TWIN llY
Excerpt from the Typical Patio or Zero Lot Line Home Side
Yard Setback Detail in Tract A Exhibit D to the Ordinance
The petitioner has, as noted in the proposed text change, limited the effective area of this change
to only a portion of Tract A (Verona Walk), which is the northern portion of the Winding
Cypress PUD. The exhibit is attachment C to the Ordinance, and it is reproduced on the next
page for ease of reference. Comparing that document to Property Appraiser aerial photos, it
appears that with the exception of about six lots along lots along Salerno Court, the area to be
affected by the amendment are not developed and most are still controlled by the petitioner.
Staff believes Exhibit C should provide adequate safeguards to address the concerns of the
neighbors that were raised at the Neighborhood Information meeting (NIM).
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 6 of 15
YmDlNG
CYPRESS
TRACT '8'
NOTE: Cross-
hatching represents
the area within which
this amendment will
be applicable
WINDING CYPRESS TRACT A
Excerpt from PUD Ordinance Exhibit C
pun Findinl!:s: LDC Subsection 1O.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the
Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the
following criteria"(LDC requirements are shown in italicized text and those are followed by
staffs analysis shown in bold text):
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 7 of 15
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and
access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
The type and pattern of development have already been reviewed and found
compliant with all applicable LDC and GMP regulations. Furthermore, this
project, as it develops, will be required to comply with all county regulations
regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00
Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly
as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided
or maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application provide satisfactory evidence of unified
control. Those portions of the existing ordinance not struck thru as part of this
amendment and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate
provisions for the continuing operation and maintenance of common areas.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant
goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff
report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found
consistent with the overall GMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening requirements.
The appropriateness of the ~ within this project was reviewed in prior rezoning
actions; no changes to the uses are proposed as part of this amendment. The
landscaping and buffering requirements were already reviewed and approved
during the rezoning process as well.
The property development regulations are being revised as part of this proposed
pun amendment, thus staff evaluated the "location of improvements." Staff
believes with the limitation offered by the petitioner that limits the effective area for
the amendment to largely the undeveloped areas/lots within Tract A of Verona
Walk (see Ordinance Exhibit C). This limitation was proposed by the petitioner
after the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Persons attending that
meeting voiced opposition to the amendment if it affected developed areas.
According to Property Appraiser aerial photos, there appear to be several developed
lots along Salerno Court. Those lots appear to be the only developed lots that would
be affected by the proposed amendment.
PUDA-PL2009,110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 8 of 15
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space set aside for this approved pun meets the minimum
requirement of the LDC. The proposed minor amendment will not change the
amount of open space.
6. The timing or sequence of development jiJr the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements andfacilities. both public and private.
Since the project is currently being developed, the timing or sequence of
development in light of concurrency requirements does not appear to be a
significant problem for this amendment. In addition the project's development
must be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations when
development approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
Please refer to pun finding number 6 above.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
are justified as meeling public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to lUeral
application of such regulations.
This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which deviations
proposed for this pun depart from development standards that would be required
for the most similar conventional zoning district. No deviations are being sought in
conjunction with this amendment therefore this criterion is not applicable.
Rezone Findinl!s: LDC Subsection 10.U3.U5.1 slates, "When pertaining to the rezoning of/and,
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 [allowing when applicable." (LDC requirements are shown in italicized
text and those are followed by staffs analysis shown in bold text):
l. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &
policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management
Plan.
As noted in the GMP Consistency portion of this report, the proposed development
standards revision would not affect the project's prior consistency finding. The
project remains consistent with the goals and objectives of the FLUE and the
applicable portions the Transportation Element. Therefore staff recommends that
this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP.
2. The existing land use paltern:
PUDA,PL2009,110. Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 9 of 15
As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the
neigbborhood's existing land use pattern is characterized by residentially zoned and
used lands in all directions and on all sides. No change in uses is proposed as part of
this amendment.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts;
The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because
no change is proposed to the boundaries of the subject property of this already
zoned PUD. Full consideration was givcn to this issue during the previous rezoning
actions. This amendment action is only to change one setback in the property
development regulations.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposedfiJr change.
As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the existing
district boundaries are logically drawn and as noted previously, no changes to
zoning boundaries are proposed as part of this amendment. The PUD zoning
boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries. The location map on page
two of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject
parcel.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The original rezoning was approved in 1999 with a major rewrite of the PUD done
in 2002. The housing market changes periodically with new model types introduced
by different builders and developer. The petitioner wishes to change the property
development regulations to respond to what the petitioner apparently perceives as
the current marketing trend and what is perceived to be the public's wish.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Please refer to the discussion under Rezone Finding number 4.
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.
I'
This PUD amendment does not increase the size or intensity of the currently
approved PUD. In addition, development of the subject property is consistent with
provisions of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Therefore, this project
should not create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses
and it should not affect the public safety.
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 10 of 15
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Storm water management was addressed in the previous rezone process. The
proposed development should not create drainage or surface water problems
because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards as part
of the local development order process that are designed to reduce the risk of
flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water management and drainage
system will need to be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and be
compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, the LDC
and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new or
on-going developments.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
The proposed amendment will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas outside the
PUD. Furthermore, the PUD document provides adequate property development
regulations to ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas.
The Master Plan further demonstrates that the locations of proposed preserve and
open space areas should further ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced
to adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area;
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed minor amendment will not adversely affect
property values. However, this is a subjective determination based upon anticipated
results which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property
valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself
mayor may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value.
There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to
the surrounding developments.
II. Whether the proposed change will he a delerrent to the improvement or development
o/adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
\
Properties around the site where this amendment would be applicable are generally
separated by roadways or water features. The basic premise underlying all of the
development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with
the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives
reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to
improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed PUD
amendment should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will conslilule a grant or special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public well' are;
The development complies with the GMP, which is a public policy statement
supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan.
In light of this fact, the proposed amendment does not constitute a grant of special
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17. 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 11 of 15
privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare
relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning;
The subject property could be developed with the existing property development
regulations; however as noted previously, the petitioner is seeking this amendment
in order to respond to the changing housing market.
LDC Section 2.03.06 which sets forth the purpose and intent of Plan Unit
Development Districts says in part:
It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage
ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development
or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or
control. PUDs. . . . may depart from the strict application o{setback, height, and
minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining
minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while
protecting the public interest. . . .
Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district and
further, believes the public interest will be maintained.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County;
The PUD document and the allowable development was found consistent with the
GMP subdistrict requirements when the rezoning was originally approved; no
changes are proposed as part of this amendment that would jeopardize that finding.
The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the seale, density and intensity
of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of
Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the
developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs
of the community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
This criterion is not applicable to this amendment as the uses have already been
approved and no changes to those uses are proposed as part of this amendment.
The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the
LDC; and staff does not review other sites in con.junction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any o{the range of potential uses
under the proposed zoning classification.
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 12 of 15
This site has already been altered and partially developed in compliance with the
applicable LDC requirements, and further there is no "proposed zoning
classification" as noted above. The zoning to PUD was previously approved; only
an amendment is being considered. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to this
petition.
17. The impact of developmenl on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00
regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with
all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities.
This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional
elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have
concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
Deviation Discussion. The petitioner is not seeking any deviations as part of this amendment to
the PUD.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
This petition did not trigger the need for a hearing before the EAC because no environmental
issues are being amended.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on August 10,2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the
Village Center in Verona Walk (8090 Sorrento Lane, Suite I). Approximately 70 members of
the public attended, as well as the applicant's team (Chris Hasty of Pulte Homes and Margaret
Perry of WilsonMiller, Inc.), and County staff (Kay Deselem and Cheri Rollins).
Kay Deselem welcomed the attendees and provided an overview of the NIM process. Mr. Hasty
presented an overview of the requested PUD amendment that the applicant is seeking. He
explained that when DiV osta Homes planned for the development of Parcel A (Winding Cypress
North, aka Verona Walk); there was a definitive plan and product for the duration of the
community. These products required either a 0' setback on one side and 10' setback on the other
side or 3' I" on one side and 6' 11" on the other side. All units constructed to date on site meet
these setbacks. Market conditions have changed and wc now require a more flexible setback,
while maintaining the required minimum often feet between buildings.
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 130115
Members of the public discussed the following points, outlined below in public
question/applicant response format:
Q. Are more units going to be added to the development?
A. The number of units is not being requested to change.
Q. Is the revision being requested to allow air conditioning units in the side yard as opposed
to the front yard? .
A. This could be one outcome of the approval of the request; however, the request is related
to a variation in the approved setbacks, not for allowing air conditioning units in the side yard.
Q. What if an existing constructed home was remodeled and the air conditioning unit was
moved to the side yard instead of the front yard - there is concern about noise from the unit and
the effect on neighbors. Would the applicant consider applying these revised setbacks only to the
undeveloped lots?
A. As the application was originally submitted, the request was for revision to the setbacks
for the entire Parcel A (Verona Walk) of the Winding Cypress PUD. The applicant took into
consideration the comments and concerns from the public at the NIM and has agreed to scale
down the application to only cover the remaining un-built lots within Parcel A. The applicant
has since provided an exhibit to accompany the ordinance which depicts the area that the revised
setbacks would realistically apply, since no changes to existing homes or lots are contemplated.
The applicant has also agreed in concept to an associated language change on the application at
the request of the NIM attendees who were concerned that neighbors would use this opportunity
to relocate their air conditioning units to the 3' wide side yard.
Q. If Pulte Homes pulls out of the project, what is the effect of this amendment?
A. If approved, the PUD amendment is still in full force and effect. If other development
standards by a future developer are proposed in the future that are not in keeping with the
approved standards, the PUD would again have to be amended through the public hearing
process, including another NIM for public input
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for PUDA-PL2009- I 10 revised on
September 2,2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition
PUDA-PL2009-11O to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of
approval.
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev 9/2/09
Page 14 of 15
PREPARED BY:
~ ~O~/~
KA! ESELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~/JO{09
IDA E
REVIEWED BY:
(!,
~
RA YM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
"'6/31/0"1
bATE
/
/" d .i., ~
./ . .' r ..
\..&"- nt i'" ' . ~ {".-""0:'
SUS M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR 'i' 1
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~ i I
f .31 /09
, DATE
APPROVED BY:
.S:: ~ "'b.ld'?
EPH K. SCHMITT ADMINISTRATOR If DATE
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the November 24, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
PUDA-PL2009-110, Winding Cypress PUD
September 17, 2009 CCPC
Rev: 8/20109
Page 15 of 15