2010 Cycle Staff Report
'-
...
2010 CYCLE CCPC ADOPTION
STAFF REPORT
~
~
Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H
T C::OU.ff..LY
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/PLANNING AND
REGULATION, LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION
HEARING DATE: JULY 21,2011
FROM:
ELEMENTS:
2010 CYCLE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS,
INCLUDING ONE 2008 CYCLE PETITION (ADOPTION HEARING)
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AND FUTURE LAND USE
MAP AND MAP SERIES; AND, GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER
PLAN (GGAMP) ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND
MAP SERIES
SUBJECT:
At time of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) Transmittal hearings, the
2010 cycle of Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments consisted of three petitions
- one private sector petition and two County-initiated petitions. However, at the Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) Transmittal hearing on this 2010 cycle, a prior cycle
petition (CP-2008-1) that had been continued indefinitely at the BCC Transmittal hearing
in 2009 was added to this 2010 cycle. Therefore, there are now four petitions in this
2010 cycle of GMP amendments - two private sector and two County-initiated petitions.
Transmittal hearings on these amendments were held on December 1, 2010 (EAC,
Environmental Advisory Council) for the Wellhead Protection Areas Map portion of
petition CPSP-2010-2 only; December 16, 2010 and January 20, 2011 (CCPC, Collier
County Planning Commission) for petitions CP-2010-1 and CPSP-2010-2, and February
17, 2011 (CCPC) for petition CPSP-2010-5, and October 19 and 20, 2009 (CCPC) for
petition CP-2008-1; and, March 22, 2011 (BCG) for petitions CP-2010-1, CPSP-2010-2
and CPSP-2010-5, and January 19, 2010 and March 22, 2011 (BCC) for petition CP-
2008-1. The respective Transmittal recommendations/actions are presented further
below, following each petition number and title.
Within the CCPC binder you will find the Transmittal Executive Summary from the March
22, 2011 BCC hearing and certain attachments referenced therein, the Transmittal
ccpe staff report for each petition, and both the Transmittal and Adoption EAC staff
reports (for the Wellhead Protection Map portion of petition CPSP-2010-2 only), all of
which provide staff's detailed analysis of each petition.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ORC REPORT:
After review of Transmitted GMP amendments, the Florida Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) renders an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report.
Only Objections can form the basis of a non-compliance determination, unless the
adopted amendments vary significantly from those transmitted. If an Objection is not
adequately addressed when adopted, then the DCA may (presumably will) find the
1
Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H
amendment to be "Not in eompliance" with Florida Statutes, and issue a Notice of Intent
(NOI) to indicate such noncompliance. The eounty may respond to the ORe Report in
one of four ways at Adoption:
1. not modify the amendment, but provide additional explanation of what the
amendment is about, its purpose, what it will achieve [appropriate if we believe DeA
simply does not understand/has misunderstood the amendment] and/or provide
additional data and analysis to support the amendment; or
2. modify the amendment, so as to address the ORC issue; or,
3. modify the amendment, and provide additional explanation and/or provide additional
data and analysis; or,
4. not adopt the amendment.
In their April 21, 2011 ORe Report for the 2010 cycle of GMP amendments, DCA raises
no Objections, and offers only one eomment - relative to petition ep-2008-1. That
Comment pertains to historical/archaeological resources in the vicinity of the subject site.
The staff response is to note there are no such resources known to exist on the site
itself; further, to note that the LDC already provides that should such resources be
discovered during development activity, development is to cease and proper authorities
are to be notified. The ORC Report, which includes comments from other state and
regional review agencies, is included in the eepc binder.
The ordinances proposed for adoption include text and/or map exhibits for each petition;
those exhibits are located within the ecpc binder.
~..
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
A. PETITION CP-2008-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use MaD and MaD
Series, to create the Estates Shopping eenter Subdistrict to allow a maximum of
190,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts, with
exceptions, and some uses of the C-4 and e-5 zoning districts with a requirement to
construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate
Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3rd Street Northwest, in Section 4,
Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :1:40.62 acres. [eoordinator:
Michele Mosca, Alep, Principal Planner]
This petition seeks to amend the GGAMP to establish the Estates Shopping Center
Subdistrict and re-designate the subject site from Neighborhood eenter Subdistrict 8:.5
acres) and Residential Estates Subdistrict to this new Subdistrict. The Subdistrict would
allow a total of 190,000 square feet of development, including a grocery store no less
than 27,000 square feet and which must be the first building/user issued a Certificate of
Occupancy. Note: The companion PUD rezone petition is scheduled for this same
hearing.
TRANSMITTAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Do not transmit to DCA. [However, as presented at the
March 22,2011 BCC hearing, staff would recommend approval IF the petition was
revised to: limit the overall size (square feet) to that of a neighborhood shopping center;
limit individual users, except for grocer, to 20,000 square feet; replace detailed list of
~
2
Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H
permitted uses with reference to uses allowed in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts;
and, remove the conceptual site plan.]
ccpe REeOMMENDATION: There was no CCPC recommendation on revised petition
CP-2008-1 by virtue of a tie vote (4/4). At the cepe Transmittal hearing, the petitioner
verbally proposed two changes to the amendment: 1) reduce building height from two
stories to one story; and, 2) reduce the proposed building area from 225,000 square feet
to 210,000 square feet. The failed motion to approve was subject to staff alternative text
in the Staff Report, revised to: 1) keep the list of allowable uses #1-27 as proposed by
petitioner, but delete #28 [this requires a re-Iettering of paragraphs]; 2) revise paragraph
"a.12" to reflect the correct SIC eode term; 3) revise paragraph "a." to add a "catchall"
prohibited use #14; 4) revise paragraph "b." to reduce the total allowable building area
from 225,000 s.f. to 210,000 s.f., as proposed by the petitioner at the hearing, and to
modify the building floor area term; 5) revise paragraph "c." to recognize the potential for
more than one grocery use; 6) revise paragraph "e.1." pertaining to the timing of right-of-
way donation; and, 6) delete paragraph "n." pertaining to common architectural theme.
The text that reflects the eepc's unsuccessful motion is contained in the document
titled "cepe Transmittal Recommendation for CP-2008-1."
BCC AeTION: At their January 19, 2010 hearing, the BCC continued this petition
indefinitely so as to allow the petitioner to place this item on the November 2010 ballot
for a non-binding referendum. The petitioner did so. The Executive Summary and
attachments, especially the Supplemental Report, for the March 22, 2011 BGG hearing
contains details about the referendum, additional staff analysis, etc.
At their March 22, 2011 hearing, the BCC approved this petition for Transmittal to DCA
(vote: 4/1), as presented by the petitioner, with direction to the cepc to make
recommendation upon the appropriate square feet cap for individual users.
ADOPTION
STAFF REeOMMENDATION: Do not transmit to DCA as presented; however, staff
would recommend approval for adoption with the following changes: limit the overall size
(square feet) to that of a neighborhood shopping center; limit individual users, except for
grocer, to 20,000 square feet; replace detailed list of permitted uses with reference to
uses allowed in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts; and, remove the conceptual site
plan.
B. PETITION CP-201 0-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE), to modify the language of the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict to allow a grocery/supermarket, physical
fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furnishing store and department store use to
exceed the 20,000 square feet limitation for a single commercial use, up to a
maximum of 50,000 square feet, for Parcel 1 Ct9.2 acres, zoned Bradford Square
MPUD) only, and with the overall maximum development limitation of 100,000
square feet of commercial land uses on Parcel 1 to remain; the subject portion of the
Subdistrct is located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and
Livingston Road in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. [Coordinator:
Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner]
3
Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H
The Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict was established
in 2005 and comprises two non-contiguous parcels that generally allow commercial
uses found in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts. Each parcel has an overall
building square feet cap, and each parcel includes a maximum size for any individual
commercial use of 20,000 square feet. This petition, which applies to Parcel 1 only,
seeks to increase the individual use cap to 50,000 square feet for certain specified
uses.
TRANSMITTAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA.
cepc RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DeA as submitted by the petitioner and
modified at the hearing to add a list of prohibited uses, and to require, by adoption
hearings, the recordation of deed restrictions listing the same prohibited uses (vote: 9/0).
Bec AeTION: Transmitted to DCA (vote: 5/0), per ecpc recommendation.
ADOPTION
STAFF REeOMMENDATION: Adopt as transmitted.
c. PETITION CPSP-2010-2, Staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land
Use Element and Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series (FLUElFLUM), to: modify
the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO); modify FLUE
Policy 5.1; modify applicability of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict; update
the Wellhead Protection Map; update the FLUM and Map Series to reflect
annexations, etc.; make FLUM boundary corrections in rural areas; and, add clarity,
correct date errors, and make other non-substantive text revisions. [Coordinator:
David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager]
~f\
On September 14, 2010, the BeC authorized eounty Manager or designee to initiate this
petition which proposes various amendments to the Future Land Use Element and
Future Land Use Map and Map series. Most of the amendments seek only to add
clarity, correct errors and omissions, provide updates to map features, and provide
harmony and internal consistency. However, exceptions include: 1) changes to Policy
5.1 to allow redistribution of use density and intensity; 2) modification of the Office and
Infill eommercial Subdistrict pertaining to its applicability; 3) changes to the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) to delete a development
standard, add a use, and add clarity regarding applicability of FLUE Policies; and, 4)
update the Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs
Map, based upon most recent hydrologic modeling, as required by Objective 1 of the
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element and subsequent policies, and
Objective 3.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and subsequent
policies.
TRANSMITTAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA.
EAC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 3-0). [Only applicable to the
Wellhead Protection Areas Map.]
4
Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H
eepc REeOMMENDATION: Transmit to DeA (vote: 9/0), per staff's recommendation,
except subject to modifications to FLUE Policy 5.1 and the Office and Infill eommercial
Subdistrict - both for clarity/brevity/simplicity, and revision to the Wellfields Protection
Map to add Marco Island Utilities' Marco Lakes (in northeast quadrant of US-41
East/Collier Blvd. intersection).
BCC AeTION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 5/0), per CCPC recommendation.
POST-TRANSMITTAL ACTIVITY
Subsequent to the Transmittal of this petition, staff has further reviewed and analyzed
the addition of the eity of Marco Island's Marco Lakes Reservoir (Reservoir) to the
Wellhead Protection Areas Map. Staff notes that the Map serves as the basis for the
map boundaries and protective measures found within the Land Development Code,
Section 3.06, Groundwater Protection. Those maps and regulations found therein are
designed to protect potable water supply wellfields that draw water from the surficial
aquifer system, by placing controls on land uses that may pollute a wellfield's drinking
water supply.
The Reservoir receives water from both the surficial aquifer system and Henderson
Creek (Creek) that runs along the east side of the Reservoir. There is a weir (gate valve)
located on the north side of the Reservoir that is closed most of the time, but water from
the Creek still trickles around the weir structure. In addition water from the ereek
infiltrates through the bank that separates it from the Reservoir. The volume of water
that infiltrates into the Reservoir varies based on seasonal pump rates from the
Reservoir (up to 16 mgd) to the eity of Marco Island and ASR wells. Infiltration may also
vary based on the elevation of the Creek compared with the elevation of the Reservoir.
The Marco Island Utilities provides limited monitoring in the Creek, upstream of the
Reservoir. There are also no protections from flooding.
The Pollution eontrol Department has modeled risk management special treatment
overlay zones (STW-1 through STW-5) around the Reservoir, derived from a three-
dimensional computer-modeled analysis of ground water flow and solute transport in the
County's freshwater aquifer system. While this model provides a limited level of risk
management protection from a pollutant entering the reservoir through the surficial
aquifer system, it provides no protection from a pollutant entering the reservoir from the
Creek. Pollution Control has no modeling tool that will provide for this protection.
Because the wellhead protection zone maps and regulations are not designed to, and
cannot, protect the reservoir from surface water pollutants that may unexpectedly enter
Henderson ereek, staff does not believe it appropriate to include the Marco Lakes
Reservoir on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map.
ADOPTION
STAFF REeOMMENDATION: Adopt as transmitted except remove the Marco Island
Utilities' Marco Lakes.
EAC RECOMMENDATION: To be presented at CCPC hearing (meeting is scheduled
for July 6, 2011).
5
Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H
D. PETITION CPSP-2010-5, Staff Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land
Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to delete the Davis
Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict and re-designate the site as
Urban Residential Subdistrict for property consisting of approximately 22.83 acres
located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) at
eounty Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. [eoordinator:
eorby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
On December 14, 2010, the BCe held a public hearing to consider rezone petition
PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 for the Davis Reserve Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) at the subject site. During that hearing, the applicant withdrew that rezone
petition; the Bee directed County Manager or designee to initiate a GMP amendment to
the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict to remove the traditional
neighborhood development requirement, the commercial component, and the affordable
housing requirement - with the applicant stating "no objection" to this direction; and, the
applicant committed to request a PUD rezone that eliminates the retail and limits the
maximum density to five dwelling units per acre (DU/A), and to pay costs for that rezone.
From the BCC direction, staff developed the below two alternatives.
Alternative 1: Modify the Subdistrict to eliminate the commercial component, affordable
housing requirement, and all design and development standards, and limit density to a
maximum of 5 DU/A; and,
Alternative 2. Eliminate the entire Subdistrict and re-designate the site as Urban
Residential Subdistrict (the site's designation prior to 2005 when the Davis
Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict was established).
TRANSMITTAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA to delete the Davis Boulevard/County
Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict in its entirety and re-designate the site as Urban
Residential Subdistrict (Alternative 2).
CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DeA (vote: 9/0), per staff recommendation.
Bce AeTION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 5/0), per ccpe recommendation.
ADOPTION
STAFF REeOMMENDATION: Adopt as transmitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION OVERALL:
That the ecpe forward petition CP-2008-1 to the BeC with a recommendation not to
adopt OR to adopt with changes as noted in this Staff Report; to forward petitions ep-
2010-1 and CPSP-2010-5 with a recommendation to adopt as transmitted; and, to
forward petition CPSP-2010-2 with a recommendation to adopt with one map change as
noted in this Staff Report; and, to transmit all approved petitions to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs.
~
6
Prepared By:
a ,f) r '
\ ~) LJ~~;
David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager
eomprehensive Planning Section
Agenda Items 9.D, F, G, H
(-1--/(
Reviewed By: ~/~--- Date:
Michael Bosi, AICP, Planning Manager
Comprehensive Planning Section
7-/- If
/~~~ ~;?~-d.-
Reviewed By: /" .,:Y /;>::r"'~-
William D. Lorenz, Jr., P.E., Director
Land Development Services Department
Mil<;., ($.1;' Pu-- \....,\ \\ ,........ l
7- / - II
Date:
Approved
Date:
Nick asalanguida, Deputy mlnistrator
Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MR. MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
2010 cycle GMPAs - Adoption (petitions CP-2008-1; CP-201 0-1; CPSP-2010-2; CPSP-2010-5).
Staff Report for July 21,2011 CCPC hearing.
NOTE: This cycle of petitions has been scheduled for the September 13, 2011 BCC hearing_
CCPC Staff Report Adoption 2010 cycle GMPAs & CP-2008-1
G:ICDES Planning ServiceslComprehensivelCOMP PLANNING GMP DATAIComp Plan Amendments\2009-2010 Combined Cycles petitions\2010
Cycle PetitionslCCPCAdoption dwl7-1-11
7