CCPC Agenda 08/02/2012 RCCPC
REGULAR
MEETING
AGENDA
AUGUST 12012
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2012,
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 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 THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
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
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. BDE- PL20110002669: Toler Boat Dock Extension - A Resolution of the Collier County Planning
Commission relating to Petition Number BD -PL201 10002669 for a 53 -foot boat dock extension over the
maximum 20 -foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total
protrusion of 73 feet for the benefit of property located in Lely Barefoot Beach PUD in Collier County,
Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,' AICP, Senior Planner]
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BDE- PL20110000644: Helsel Boat Dock Extension- A Resolution of the Collier County Planning
Commission relating to Petition Number BDE -PL201 10000644 for a 22 foot boat dock extension over the
maximum 20 foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total
protrusion of 42 feet for the benefit of property located in Isles of Capri No. 3 Subdivision in Collier
County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager]
B. PUDZ- PL20110000406: Brynwood Center -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area
of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district with an "ST"
overlay to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as
the Brynwood Center CPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 145,000 square feet of retail and
office uses which include a maximum of 25,000 square feet of retail and a maximum of 60,000 square feet
of medical office uses. Also permitted are hotel and motel uses at 20 units per acre and group housing
(assisted living facility and independent living units) at a floor area ratio of 0.6. For each acre of group
housing or hotel or motel use, 10,626 square feet of retail or office use shall be subtracted from the total
amount of allowable commercial square footage. The project is located on the south side of Pine Ridge
Road, approximately 980 feet east of the intersection of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road in
Section 18, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 13.65 + /1 acres; and
by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner]
10. OLD BUSINESS
IL NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp
2
AGENDA ITEM 9 -A
Co liar C01411ty
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 2, 2012
SUBJECT: BDE- PL20110000644, HELSEL BOAT DOCK EXTENSION
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: Ronald and Denise Helsel, Agent: Kris Thoemke,
911 Highpoint Drive Coastal Engineering, Inc.
Coal City, Pa 15423 3106 South Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, Fl 34104
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting a 22 -foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of
20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow construction of a boat docking
facility protruding a total of 42 feet into a waterway that is approximately 118 feet wide.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject boat dock lot is located at 404 Cristobal Street, Isles of Capri, Unit 3, Lot 578, in
Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East in Collier County Florida, Folio number
52450080000. (See location map on the following page).
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner is proposing to construct a boat dock facility comprised of a 4 foot by 13.5 foot long
finger dock leading to a 10 foot by 16 foot terminal platform that will service 1 boat lift and vessel.
The proposed dock facility is located on a single family residential lot that is approximately 85 feet in
width. There was a previous dock constructed in 1976 according to property appraiser records which
comprised a large deck platform built on top of pilings. Aerial photos indicate the decking was
removed before 2006 and the piles will be removed with the proposed dock facility construction. The
proposed boat dock facility will have a total protrusion of 42 feet from Mean High Water Line
(MHWL) of the subject properties seawall to the mooring pilings of an existing dock facility located to
the south on Johnson Bay. There is no dredging proposed for this project.
BD- PL2011 -0644, Page I of 8
Helsel Boat Dock Extension.
July 6, 2012, (revised July 12, 2012)
• ffU* Y.7
i..cYY
ff,• �'i
IBM
01 loN / 7
Ow Aff-
z
z
O
N
Q
Z
O
Q
U
O
0
N
J
a
0
m
f-
w
a
rli
i
z
z
O
N
Q
Z
O
Q
U
O
0
N
J
a
0
m
f-
w
a
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
SUBJECT PARCEL: Single family residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -3.
SURROUNDING:
North: Cristobal Street ROW, then Single family residence with a zoning
designation of RSF -3
East: Single family residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -3
South: Johnson Bay, then existing boat dock facility with a zoning designation of
C -3
West: Single family residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -3
Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website.
BD- PL2011 -0644, Page 3 of 8
Helsel Boat Dock Extension.
July 6, 2012, (revised July 12, 2012)
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
Environmental Services Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting
of this request. Section 5.03.06(E)(11) (Manatee Protection) of the Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC) is applicable to all multi -slip docking facilities with ten (10) or
more slips. The proposed facility consists of one boat slip and is therefore not subject to
the provisions of this section.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) shall approve, approve with conditions,
or deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the
CCPC to approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary
criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met.
Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and finds the following:
Primary Criteria
1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is
appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and
zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on
unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of
transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate;
typical single - family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi - family
use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island
docks, additional slips may be appropriate.)
Criterion met. The proposed dock facility consists of the a boat dock facility
comprised of a 13.5 foot long finger dock leading to a 10 foot by 16 foot terminal
platform that will service 1 boat lift and vessel which is less than, and consistent
with, the allowable 2 -slip provisions.
2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the
general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application
is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's
application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to
allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.)
Criterion met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth for the dock
facility is not adequate within the 20 foot permitted protrusion limit to accommodate
the 24 foot vessel noted in the application. The application indicates that
approximately 2 feet of water depth is required for the vessel including the motor
plus an additional foot of depth is required for the boat lift for a total required water
depth of 3 feet. The information provided indicates that this depth of water is not
available within the 20 foot protrusion limit.
BD- PL2011 -0644, Page 4 of 8
Helsel Boat Dock Extension.
July 6, 2012, (revised July 12, 2012)
3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation
within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should
not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel
traffic in the channel.)
Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the
proposed dock facility will not adversely impact navigation and does not protrude
into a marked or chartered navigable channel.
4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the
width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway
width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The
facility should maintain the required percentages.)
Criterion not met. The information provided in the application indicates that the
proposed dock will protrude 42 feet into a waterway that is 118 feet in width
(MHWL to the existing mooring pilings to the south). Therefore the dock facility
will protrude approximately 35.6 percent of the waterway width which means that it
does not meet this criterion.
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the
facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility
should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.)
Criterion met. According to the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the proposed
facility has been designed so that it does not interfere with adjacent neighboring
docks and/or access. The application also includes a letter of no objection from The
Blue Heron dock facility owner which is located to the south.
Secondary Criteria
1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the
subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and
location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special
condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline
reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.)
Criterion not met. The information provided in the application indicates that there is
no special condition related to the subject property or waterway. Therefore this
criterion is not met.
2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the
vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of
excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should
not use excessive deck area.)
BD- PL2011 -0644, Page 5 of 8
Helsel Boat Dock Extension.
July 6, 2012, (revised July 12, 2012)
i
Criterion not met. The proposed dock facility consists of a 4 foot by 13.5 foot long
finger dock leading to a 10 foot by 16 foot terminal platform. The petitioner notes
that state permitting allow up to 160 square feet of decking for a terminal platform
area and that the proposed dock facility meets this standard. However staff does not
agree that this is the minimum amount of decking required to allow reasonable safe
access to the proposed vessel for loading and unloading as well as routine
maintenance. While the proposed terminal platform may not be excessive given
state permitting allowances it is staff's opinion that it is not required to ensure safe
access and routine maintenance. For this reason the criterion is not met.
3. For single - family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in
combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject
property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage
should be maintained.)
Criterion met. The subject property contains a linear waterfront that is 85 feet in
length according to the application. The total length of the proposed vessel is 24
feet which is 28.2 percent of the waterfront length and less than 50 percent of the
waterfront footage.
4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront
view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major
impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.)
Criterion met. The information provided indicates that the proposed facility will not
directly change the views of adjacent parcels because the proposed dock is generally
consistent with existing dock facilities in the area and exceeds the riparian line
setbacks.
5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If
seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(I) of the LDC
must be demonstrated.)
Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, there are
seagrass beds within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. The application
indicates a seagrass bed that is approximately 20 feet from the proposed dock
facility; however the petitioner also notes that the proposed plan is in compliance
with this section of the LDC.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection
requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable,
compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.)
Criterion not applicable. The proposed facility consists of one boat slip and is
therefore not subject to the provisions of this section.
BD- PL2011 -0644, Page 6 of 8
Helsel Boat Dock Extension.
July 6, 2012, (revised July 12, 2012)
Staff analysis indicates that the request meets four of the five primary criteria. With regard
to the six secondary criteria, the request fails to meet two of the criteria and one of the
remaining criteria is found to be not applicable. Therefore the request meets the
requirements of this section of the LDC.
APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS:
As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved
petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board
of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Division
Administrator within 30 days of the action by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has
been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that he /she proceeds with
construction at his /her own risk during this 30 -day period.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for BD- PL20110000644, dated
July 6, 2012, and found it to be legally sufficient.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD-
PL20110000644:
Attachments: A. Draft Resolution
B. Application
BD- PL2011 -0644, Page 7 of 8
Helsel Boat Dock Extension.
July 6, 2012, (revised July 12, 2012)
PREPARED BY:
vv
NAC�Jfl, SA ER, PROJECT MANAGER
DEPA RTMENYOF PLANNING AND ZONING
REVIEWED BY:
U
-/-� • /W/ -,
RAYM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
MICHAEL BOSI, AICP. INTERIM DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
APPROVED BY:
WK CASALANGUIDA,AbM TRAfOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
BD- PL2011 -0644, Page 8 of 8
Helsel Boat Dock Extension.
July 6, 2012,
.-1. �•Z.C=) Z
DATE
-7-q- IZ
DATE
1i7 -1 z
DATE
7 -/ 7./ Z
DATE
f
CCPC RESOLUTION NO 12- COPY
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BDE -
PL20110000644 FOR A 22 FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION
OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT LIMIT IN SECTION
5.03.06 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF
42 FEET FOR THE BENEFIT OF PROPERTY LOCATED
IN ISLES OF CAPRI NO. 3 SUBDIVISION 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 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed,
has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 22 -foot
extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 42-
foot boat dock facility in a single family residential (RSF -3) zoning district for the property
hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section
5.03.06; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this
Commission at a public hearing, and the Commission has considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Petition Number BDE- PL20 1 1 0000644, filed on behalf of Ronald and Denise Helsel by
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 578, Isles of Capri No. 3, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in
Plat Book 3, page 66, Public Records of Collier County, Florida
it Ipy404 Cristobal St. Boat Dock (Helsel) / BDE- PL2011 -644
1/30/12
be and the same is hereby approved for a 22 -foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20-
foot limit to allow for a 42 -foot boat dock facility, as shown on the Proposed Site Plan attached
as Exhibit "A ", in the RSF -3 zoning district wherein said property is located.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this
ATTEST:
day of ___ . , 2012.
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator
Growth Management/Planning & Regulation
Division
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
DRAFT
Steven T. Williams
Assistant County Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A — Proposed Site Plan
12 -CPS- 01140/4
404 Cristobal St. Boat Dock (Helsel) / BDE- PL2011 -644
1/30/12
7
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
Z
(n
z
ITi M M
Y SO 4 xs y x 2 x� x0 x� M
. S 46,9 •�$ .c' c?>
12.5' 29.5'
42't
x x x
X `s
M x
x x
0
NI�
1? �
.
Z m
m:
m
m
y
m
ynn -_>
\VIEZC
Ory2m9D -n
)p2p�bC'J p
dm8 >^
z >� m
ZO3 A
� .�
mNam�n$�
»
p2
° Onxm
O x Npr�ri
]]
rOyi
=mom $x
pa
to
a
a
zm
mr�P >RX
. Vlo5Of)
yr_
m
O
C
2
N
11 p�ZA
00
o
0 N.
m
` D ;g p
(�
�t
y_gnC W
by n n n x
IniS
QUA
m
np mti>�i m
y 6 c �)�
°m
m
mgW
nN
y0 .a m
r
A v gi y
¢¢i
0 yo5 Ty y
m
pi i�, rD�P
r-o
Ay
-Oi ti >aC
rn
.pry
m
go
a
'0
^— z
zy
rp
I
ZO D
cz,
m M
LINE
i�i
X
�
i
_RIPARIAN
--
Oc
' ��
8 �NC.C.
GrMxWNpRAL
nuw-cscrt m
xs x x M
.2 •ss �
__
x x •�
Y� j x
iin6+^ ..
]we souiti Naxsexac urwe
xArLES. nLaspA
- MH c Ia]pxb]]N
„x,w ro„y�,�w rte']
OF A PROPOSED DOCK LOCATED AT LOT 578, ISLES OF CAPRI
N0 3 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PACE 68 OF THE
xra
e+]r:wmxrOaeN.oan
PUBLIC RECORDED OF COLLIER COUTNY ,FLORIDA-
Exhibit A
0
o O O
N
N
O O
O 0 OR
1?O
X
x
x x
s1
�9
� 1?e
O O
O 13.50
Cr
PROPOSED 10'X16'
.
-
O
^:
160 SQ. FT.
2
TERMINAL
PLATFORM
PROPOSED 4' WIDE
BOARD WALK
Z
(n
z
ITi M M
Y SO 4 xs y x 2 x� x0 x� M
. S 46,9 •�$ .c' c?>
12.5' 29.5'
42't
0
�vc
� y �
�•y a
Ii
O
O
x x x
X `s
M x
x x
0
1r
1? �
.
Z m
m:
_, *i
iaw
mitt
ynn -_>
\VIEZC
Ory2m9D -n
)p2p�bC'J p
dm8 >^
z >� m
ZO3 A
� .�
mNam�n$�
»
p2
° Onxm
O x Npr�ri
]]
rOyi
=mom $x
pa
to
o
zm
mr�P >RX
. Vlo5Of)
yr_
C
2
N
11 p�ZA
00
m
` D ;g p
(�
�t
y_gnC W
by n n n x
IniS
QUA
m
np mti>�i m
y 6 c �)�
°m
m
m
nN
y0 .a m
r
A v gi y
¢¢i
0 yo5 Ty y
m
pi i�, rD�P
r-o
Ay
-Oi ti >aC
nm rn zz ;m
.pry
a
'0
^— z
zy
m mm Z
$� Z <
I
ZO D
cz,
mA
p
O
i�i
X
�
i
ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
RON I-IELSEL
8 �NC.C.
GrMxWNpRAL
nuw-cscrt m
SITE PLAN
iin6+^ ..
]we souiti Naxsexac urwe
xArLES. nLaspA
- MH c Ia]pxb]]N
„x,w ro„y�,�w rte']
OF A PROPOSED DOCK LOCATED AT LOT 578, ISLES OF CAPRI
N0 3 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PACE 68 OF THE
xra
e+]r:wmxrOaeN.oan
PUBLIC RECORDED OF COLLIER COUTNY ,FLORIDA-
Exhibit A
0
�vc
� y �
�•y a
Ii
O
O
0
-s�
CT
_N
cl)
r
1O
O
D..
r-
00
m
m
nN
-
r-o
nm
a
0
�vc
� y �
�•y a
Ii
O
O
AGENDA ITEM 9 -B
Co*cer County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 2, 2012
SUBJECT: PUDZ- PL20110000406: BRYNWOOD CENTER
PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /AGENT:
Owner /Applicant: Agents:
First Community Bank of SW FL Robert L. Duane, AICP
1565 Red Cedar Drive Hole Montes, Inc.
Fort Myers, FL 33907 950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
REQUESTED ACTION:
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester PA
Northern Trust Bank Building
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an
application for a rezone from the Rural Agricultural Zoning District with an ST Overlay to the
Commercial Planned Unit Development District (CPUD) Zoning District to allow development
of a maximum of 145,000 square feet of retail and office uses which include a maximum of
25,000 square feet of retail and a maximum of 60,000 square feet of medical office uses. Also
permitted are hotel and motel uses at 20 units per acre and group housing (assisted living facility
and independent living units) at an FAR of 0.6. For each acre of group housing or hotel or motel
use, 10,626 square feet of retail or office use shall be subtracted from the total amount of
allowable commercial square footage.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property, consisting of 13.65± acres, is located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road
(CR 896), approximately 980 feet east of the intersection of Livingston Road (County Road 881)
and Pine Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(See location map on the following page)
/�
3NOS OL im mw
=
o
W
o
W
IT°
}}
w
Z &I -
sW
_
"
�
aaan3vo0 NVOOi
aaan3�no0 ny�
U'
�� <� �
S
F
Tv
aaan3moe aaaeaae
a1Nas
<m
�
1 m
Z
m
O�
LAM
g�
^S�
g m
lJ
O
U
3
d O
Ua S
;so
s<- 31a1sa31Ni
o
se- 31a1sa31N�
z
3
W
(.�
L -d l VU
� U
to
n
°
g
N
Rk
0
D
'
W
z 9
> d Z
15
;
OOOM31dYY1
_
6
le
m w
L)wa.
/�� ��
u,
U)
w
/
y
a
\ z
--I a6oa
i3vdA
m
r n
LMNGSTON ROAD
Fo
0 N NO15OWAn
J
m
A
I
> Wz
m�
Ms
a u
( veo)
(L6 T(0) >
�g
�� SCI
MOnR1YO
OtlOa NmndINW V
`.
Oaoa ONLTnd -laOd N
^ :... ':
�V
nz
(3'0) L -d V3bV
NOLLVA935N0O
O
1OVal
13Lwna3�5
:8
/ [EEEaiEi:.3
. ........ ..........:.... ...:
iS ?:;? iii ?iy2 ?tEEaftEEEEEEEEEtE tisi(i[ii ; ?;tltEii >3P?
a
W�
S
Lj
g
W3
n
Z,
-
�
OOOMNA89
Ond OVOa 3L1 xom
�aaS3L310000
ow
n
�
n
y
w
I
-0 . ..:.:.:. :.:.:.... .:.:.:.:.:.:::
fiiiiiiiiiiiE`E'
z
w
o
z
a
I
n <
r
n
w
^rc
a
g
N
.:: ..
3
a
0
¢
IS -NON
°
3
o
p
m
m
O
J
7 lOVMI
OVON NOISONLAn
3NOS OL im mw
I
V
Z
Z
O
N
N
J
a
N
a
I.J.
Z
O
Q
U
O
W
IL
=
o
o
W
IT°
}}
w
Z &I -
sW
_
"
�
aaan3vo0 NVOOi
aaan3�no0 ny�
U'
�� <� �
S
aaan3moe aaaeaae
a1Nas
<m
�
1 m
Z
m
O�
LAM
g�
^S�
g m
sSm
O
3
d O
Ua S
;so
s<- 31a1sa31Ni
se- 31a1sa31N�
i
M
g
Rk
3Nd
D
z A
§
OOOM31dYY1
_
6
le
m
LMNGSTON ROAD
Fo
0 N NO15OWAn
m�
Ms
W u
( veo)
(L6 T(0) >
�g
�� SCI
MOnR1YO
OtlOa NmndINW V
`.
Oaoa ONLTnd -laOd N
LJ
sW
�V
nz
=
13Lwna3�5
:8
a
W�
S
Lj
g
W3
Z,
-
�
Ond OVOa 3L1 xom
�aaS3L310000
ow
n
I
V
Z
Z
O
N
N
J
a
N
a
I.J.
Z
O
Q
U
O
W
IL
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural zoning district to the CPUD
zoning district to allow development of a maximum of 145,000 square feet of retail and office
uses which include a maximum of 25,000 square feet of retail and a maximum of 60,000 square
feet of medical office uses. The petitioner also requests hotel and motel uses at 20 units per acre
and group housing (assisted living facility and independent living units) at 26 units per acre. The
petitioner has offered a limitation for each acre of group housing or hotel or motel use, 10,626
square feet of retail or office use shall be subtracted from the total amount of allowable
commercial square footage.
The Master Plan shows one access point onto Pine Ridge Road via Good Earth Drive, and
vehicular /bicycle /pedestrian interconnections to the east to Pine Ridge Center West PUD and to
the East to the Baldridge PUD. The Master Plan shows the preserve locations, a water
management lake and potential building locations and parking areas. The proposed seven
deviations are also shown on the Master Plan. These are discussed later in this report.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Pine Ridge Road, then the partially developed 16± acre Cambridge Square PUD,
approved for commercial uses in Ordinance #06 -01
East: The partially developed 8.87± acre Pine Ridge Center West PUD, approved for
commercial uses in Ordinance 401 -09, then Kraft Road
South: The developed Brynwood Preserve 29± acre subdivision with a zoning designation of
PUD, Ordinance # 2000 -073 that was approved at a density of 5.47 dwelling units per acre
West: North Naples Fire and Rescue station, with a zoning designation of Public (P) with a
Special Treatment (ST) overlay, and the Marquesa Shopping Center, with a zoning designation
of PUD (Baldridge PUD) Ordinances 407 -33 and 402 -55), then Livingston Road
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 2 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
ue..rm SS `Jd '92 9d
S3ldVN dO 1trdo-13o. Ivurauls3a. a
3O1dSOH ::' .; si�ld+.:3/tH3S3lid't]tWOMNJIHB
31�
:.:'ten
10
tom^ I:i1.t iz u�� m
`_..,.._.. "' kl"tit It�I4 immr x w N
_`
Wwam ,:.`.: 't +.+i +gy' a
MA < ww � W .�
m
o I li t I ° €J 3 �+ z
oa?o z gym.. a
4t. of W + s + «• ,.
LU
� U '
�3 p3
o� o�
oFz 0
vi
0
x
M
i lo 0
2 U 2�
o <�
0
I
I
i
I °
I
Y
1
i n
is
is
I
A
i
°
o U
f
I
¢
o°§
r
W
-100
O¢
o � <o
t•- z
<�a -°3i
..
C
I a m a
8 SO W
m
•s"
p
=ze
maw
S V a
1 o
±+
o
°
W
Z
kl
¢
l 03o
I I
+ ,{'
a
Lu
CL
w
O
0 if
ooh
o
'
(sod
Z
`
W I
;,(L( - `
Qa wo
V
�J
Jo y
oZm<
al
MO
�J
I
•U�m
k
I
�'
o
J
� � o SH I
+'
� I i
30 =� ��
(7
� U '
�3 p3
o� o�
oFz 0
vi
0
x
M
i lo 0
2 U 2�
o <�
0
I
I
i
I °
I
Y
1
i n
is
is
I
�W m r F '
LL�N I o< o i
a
n no3rc $1
Y dFZO 1
Zw <<
S 0Ngz
P. 0
° s
°O= 1
I- --- ---- ---- --- - - -- -'
rc
f
I
¢
o°§
W
-100
O¢
o � <o
t•- z
<�a -°3i
°
o��rcrc
•s"
±+
o
0 if
o
�J
�W m r F '
LL�N I o< o i
a
n no3rc $1
Y dFZO 1
Zw <<
S 0Ngz
P. 0
° s
°O= 1
I- --- ---- ---- --- - - -- -'
M;
I �
avow 30M aid
-- - -- - --
Z cLLS
a <
i i I
1
f
I
¢
o°§
W
-100
O¢
t•- z
0 if
o
M;
I �
avow 30M aid
-- - -- - --
Z cLLS
a <
i i I
1
f
I
¢
o°§
W
O¢
I
ce
W
1-
Z
1..1.J
V
0
O
Z
M
I
so
0
8 �
Q
U
M
O
O
w
W
L'i
°a
€
o
W H=
N N
O
N
Q vi Q Q`lo¢ w ¢0 Ocr
tow
U w O w
mz00
LL:
v
J �
o�lnF
F- O Z Li W
F� ow
O
�O LI)LL)
O
-U
XO UIZ QO
L�
N
w
�¢LF
Q W Z U)
p m F-
Q
of 0 W�
¢W
O -
¢Q V"
� F Q Z
¢
O
o
0',
afaf W-
Q
w'U
d¢ �w Z
w z m(=
w m� X W
n'
¢
W
p��° -_�°
Q
(nc�p(W- -m2
Q
QZ0W WO
m
2
u p0¢
O
F-
I�
Cr) Z (n _j
0� )¢W aQ
V�Q
U
N J o O
= o 0 Z W
O
H_ 0 W Z Q
~ a
Q
w
OLLQOW
Li_
O �w
NWOOO
to
JJZQ W
¢Z
m J
Q
0NOL U
CD
OUZw�
¢z0�
U— ZU
WUF-
w0g�¢
O S
wo
-O
x O m
OSS
w
(Li
O
O
O�OD0
W
pWaF'Ld
z
-H Z
x
FzoU
Q O V)
O
L`
:2
FQ
M -1 U
Q
O
••
W 0
U
T
pQlnmO
¢Q� -j
v v U V
Q¢¢¢
ZO
F
w' :—< Z�
°F
0
o°LLJ0
�Q
Qwm =�
¢WNOF
0000
m
=
F- <
(nF-QW ¢w
it
U
ooh
�t J
S>
II rn ,- .-
�--
Q
w M ¢ U �
m
ZO�0W<04
Q
w
NW
>
OU
>>
o� w' W
MOO�
O
�
j
w
W
QWm N S
W
m
0L�:Zm LOS
mQ
m� Zw Q
r) II II II II
Q
mJv aN
W
Q
:2 (f) S .M OS
0p� -F
¢w
QW OW
x
W
Z
W0Jr 3:
-QQW0w
Q
�
-
0W
Fw
oXWXF
�w w
w
-H Q
W
FF
Jv) (n F-o
<�m�
J
X00wQ mz
Q ,� O
OU)
FWD
ooJL`o
� 2
-H -H
Fz��w�0
;tea
W
H
Q
Ldo OH
�NMW WU
wZ-
Z
Z UO�
W Z(nw
Q N
a
;ti
¢Q
mp p
l-w I OW Q
mti
wZ UO °zq+
F
W
o
Qo °���
000
OQwww
W
V
m
co LZ
Z
cflo
L
°v < =5az
a §
a
Z
~ Z .. O ti
cn N
cn w m U S
r7 O_
O
�-
N 0¢ CD o
a
m
MOZ �w
OW
WU-)Q~
d
°
H
riM
ZJ�'�(�MQ
J
Q
O
o-
=Q °w°
o>°
=ow
>¢¢�v
fnoow
0
Q
F-0�oFZ --?�
J
W
c>��W
a m
W (n0 W
w
D .U)) -o
Z
�o� Z
W
oW
cr- O
C)xam = -J D
Q
�
J
¢
W J-
z�U >J(n
W
�
0
W
w QF-w
W
W
> >(nwQ
0
»
(no wo n m O J
J wwQmJ
N�
w
L
F-
W
�
F-
oo
F-
0 U u- Q�
LLOSO
U_ZOU
F 0
z
0 �iQ
F dc? w cn
o_�of °
IIL
O
0 LLI 2
w�a!Qw
w'wd Jw'
W
%
C1 0
Ld Of
O
E
M:E
QE H
w'w
N M
O
W 8
01,
x_
LLJ a:
3�3N3
QU Z
tzZ
O
J
LLJ (n0M
J
Z W
Jw W
- -
d �
Z
U
QW
L�U)?
°€
<
w> oafF- U
3 n
W w Y F W W w U �J..I
U) 0 o
O
w
U
wo F-
o F- � (/)
U W
�
Q
J.
F¢F
W
F
>-
(7Z
>_ z
¢ z
¢ w
m
(n
J
<�
W
�-
Z
s<
`I
>
�N
'�
vf)
°W
N
V
w
¢
J
O W
� F��
rL
O J
o �
3 j
Vi
m F-
o-
F-
z
Q m
o
m
U z s
m
z
O
o�
W
`= w
L)
(n
Yp�
i' s�
V)
Q
p
Q mgt
¢
w
w
c)
w
D
Z
Ld },
? a o
o
F
L`
t-
U
Q
ON
�y
0 J z
Ld
w C2
N_
I.A
L.L
: Z
in
Of W
� w
V) 0
PC
DF NiiRiwy+�+ 14
`1 r. oE,uErzsH'AI"
I F
P E VIEW G,UA 1
qq t
ft
.s.6 i
A �y CJ PLO =JU PUD CPUD
y u 0
C
f�y n
.ar�ir<
Tt� ...P,Ua.�
�PUD ovo E 4
a
i [
A � A
D 1i
s i yy SSE •l
1 4 :O:A =ID4 rJr
n o
LEGEND
EDPNE TIME HCAO
ItiEk 6111E AZTIVM CENIM
PNE RIME FCAD
WIXED U.i SIMOM41UT
1U=-11Na ^STOV / CJSE R13CE
- tltL 1F1LL SU6EIS1MCT
An exhibit showing the subject property's location in relationship to the Mixed
use Activity Center, the Interchange Activity Center and the Livingston /Pine
Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict.
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 3 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed
Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted in the Future Land Use Element [FLUE]
and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan [GMP]. The petition
is reliant upon the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, a text -based provision in the FLUE.
Below is the Subdistrict as proposed for amendment, followed by staff analysis [bold text].
Office and In -fill Commercial Subdistrict: The intent of this Subdistrict is to allow low intensity
office commercial or infill commercial development on small parcels within the Urban Mixed
Use District located along arterial and collector roadways where residential development, as
allowed by the Density Rating System, may not be compatible or appropriate. Lower intensity
office commercial development attracts low traffic volumes on the abutting roadway(s) and is
generally compatible with nearby residential and commercial development. The criteria listed
below must be met for any project utilizing this Subdistrict. For purposes of this Subdistrict,
"abuts" and "abutting" excludes intervening public street, easement (other than utilities) or right -
of -way, except for an intervening local street; and "commercial" refers to C -1 through C -5
zoning districts and commercial components of PUDs.
a. The subject site is in the Urban-Mixed Use District. [It is.]
b. The subject site abuts a road classified as an arterial or collector on the Collier County
Functional Class Map, as adopted in the Transportation Element. [Pine Ridge Road is
classified as an arterial.]
c. A rezone to commercial zoning is requested for the subject property in its entirety, up to a
maximum of 12 acres. For a property greater than 12 acres in size, the balance of the
property in excess of 12 acres is limited to an environmental conservation easement or open
space. Under this provision, "open space" shall not include water management facilities
unless said facilities are incorporated into a conservation or preservation area for the purpose
of enhancement of the conservation or preservation area. [The total site is 13.65 acres; 3.1
acres are preserve yielding the "developable" portion of the site at less than 12 acres
(10.55 acres).]
d. The site abuts commercial zoning:
(i) On one side and that abutting commercial site is not within an infill Subdistrict in the
Urban Mixed Use District or the Urban Commercial District; or,
(ii) On both sides. [Commercial zoning abuts the east boundary — Pine Ridge Center
West PUD, and about one -half of the west boundary — Baldridge PUD.]
e. The abutting commercial zoning may be in the unincorporated portion of Collier County or
in a neighboring jurisdiction. [OK.]
f. The depth of the subject property in its entirety, or up to 12 acres for parcels greater than 12
acres in size, for which commercial zoning is being requested, does not exceed the depth of
the commercially zoned area on the abutting parcel(s). Where the subject site abuts
commercial zoning on both sides, and the depth of the commercially zoned area is not the
same on both abutting parcels, the Board of County Commissioners shall have discretion in
determining how to interpret the depth of the commercially zoned area which cannot be
exceeded, but in no case shall the depth exceed that on the abutting property with the greatest
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 4 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
depth of commercial area. This discretion shall be applied on a case -by -case basis. [Depth of
subject site does not exceed depth of adjacent commercial properties.]
g. Project uses are limited to office or low intensity commercial uses if the subject property
abuts commercial zoning on one side only. For property abutting commercial zoning on both
sides, the project uses may include those of the highest intensity abutting commercial zoning
district. [Proposes uses are of comparable intensity as those in the two adjacent PUDs.]
h. The subject property in its entirety was not created to take advantage of this provision,
evidenced by its creation prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management
Plan on October 28, 1997. [Criterion met.]
i. For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting one side only:
(i) commercial zoning used pursuant to this Subdistrict shall only be applied one time and
shall not be expanded, except for aggregation of additional properties so long as all other
criteria under this Subdistrict are met; and,
(ii) uses shall be limited so as to serve as a transitional use between the commercial zoning
on one side and non - commercial zoning on the other side. [N /A]
j. For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting both sides, commercial zoning
used pursuant to this Subdistrict shall only be applied one time and shall not be expanded,
except for aggregation of additional properties so long as all other criteria under this
Subdistrict are met. [OK.]
k. Lands zoned for support medical uses pursuant to the "1/4 mile support medical uses"
provision in the Urban designation shall not be deemed "commercial zoning" for purposes of
this Subdistrict. [N/A]
1. Land adjacent to areas zoned C -1 /T on the zoning atlas maps, or other commercial zoning
obtained via the former Commercial Under Criteria provision in the FLUE, shall not be
eligible for a rezone under the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, except through
aggregation as provided in Paragraphs i. and j. above. [N /A]
m. For purposes of this Subdistrict, property abutting land zoned Industrial or Industrial PUD, or
abutting lands zoned for Business Park uses pursuant to the Business Park Subdistrict, or
abutting lands zoned for Research and Technology Park uses pursuant to the Research and
Technology Park Subdistrict, shall also qualify for commercial zoning so long as all other
criteria under the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict are met. [N /A]
n. At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer.
[County central water and sewer service is available to the site.
o. The project will be compatible with existing land uses and permitted future land uses on
surrounding properties. [Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Zoning Services staff as
part of their review of the petition in its entirety.]
P. The maximum acreage eligible to be utilized for the Office and Infill Commercial
Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District is 250 acres. [This threshold has not been
reached.]
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of
Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and
redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold
text].
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 5 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
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. [Exhibit C,
the PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Pine Ridge Road, an arterial road per the
Transportation Element.]
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. [No street system for the project is proposed. Nonetheless, Exhibit C, the PUD
Master Plan, depicts a single access to Pine Ridge Road; by default, access to individual
parcels would be internal — or via interconnection with commercial properties to the east
and west.]
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. [No street system for the project is proposed. Exhibit C, the PUD Master
Plan, depicts interconnection to the east (Pine Ridge Center CPUD) and west (Baldridge
PUD). A preserve area /buffer is located along the entire southern boundary of the site, and
the property to the south is a built -out residential development.]
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. [For the most part, this policy is not applicable since this is not a residential project.
The required open space is depicted on Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan.]
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the
Future Land Use Element if staff's recommended conditions are included in any
recommendation of approval.
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 found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP).
Pine Ridge Road Impacts:
The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 67.2, Pine Ridge Road between
Livingston Road and I -75. The project generates 278 p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which
represents a significant impact of 7.45% by the project. This segment of Pine Ridge Road
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 6 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
currently has a remaining capacity of 1,245 trips, and is currently at LOS "D" as reflected by the
2011 AUIR.
The next concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 67. 1, Pine Ridge Road between
Airport Road and Livingston Road. The project generates 149 p.m. peak hour, off-peak direction
trips, which represents a significant impact of 3.99% by the project. However, these trips are
generated in the off -peak direction, so they are not evaluated as a consistency requirement. In
the Peak Direction, this segment of Pine Ridge Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,057
trips, and is currently at LOS "D" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR.
An additional concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 68.0, Pine Ridge Road
between I -75 and Logan Boulevard. The project generates 102 p.m. peak hour, peak direction
trips, which represents a significant impact of 2.70% by the project. This segment of Pine Ridge
Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,677 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected
by the 2011 AUIR.
All three concurrency segments listed above are within the East Central TCMA. However, the
applicant does not propose to exempt this project from concurrency requirements, and
accordingly, there are no TCMA requirements applied.
No subsequent links beyond these segments of Pine Ridge are significantly impacted by this
project. This analysis includes evaluation of both links 48.0 and 49.0, Livingston Road from
Vanderbilt Beach to Pine Ridge, and Pine Ridge to Golden Gate Parkway (respectively); neither
of which is significantly impacted.
Note: In accordance with Collier County Planning Commission guidance, the developer has
proposed a trip generation cap of 565 unadjusted, two -way, PM Peak hour trips.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Environmental review staff
found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element
(CCME). This project was not required to go before the Environmental Advisory Council Board
(EAC) since this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as
identified in Section 2 -1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. The project
site consists of 7.16 acres of native vegetation that generally consists of pine and pine- cypress
mixed forested communities with varying degrees of exotic vegetation. A minimum of 15% of
the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County.
The minimum native preservation requirement is 1.07 acres. The PUD master plan provides
3.10 acres of native preservation. No state or federally listed wildlife nests or burrows were
found on the project site.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as
this proposed rezoning. 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
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 7 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7117/12
GMP discussion, except as expounded upon in the Zoning Analysis Section of this report. The
proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed.
Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME.
Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals,
objective and policies of the overall GMP if the limitation contained in the Zoning Analysis
Section is included in any recommendation of approval.
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 10.02.13.13.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to
as the "PUD Findings "), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning
Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings "), which establish the legal bases to
support the CCPC'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 Services Analysis." In addition, staff
offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document to address environmental concerns. There are no outstanding environmental issues.
Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues. The PUD document contains the
mitigation discussed in the Transportation Element section of this staff report.
Utility Review: Any portions of this PUD to be developed shall be required to comply with
Ordinance Number 2004 -31, as it may be amended. The project is subject to the conditions
associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division.
Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and
complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested
uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject
proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and
densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building
mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space
and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and
complementary to, the surrounding land uses only if other limitations are included as discussed
on the next page and in the deviation discussion. To support that opinion staff offers the
following analysis of this project.
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 8 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document show the following:
SPS = same as principal use setback.
* No setback is required from the east property line provided a unified plan is approved with the Pine Ridge
West PUD.
** No sound speaker systems within 400 feet of the south property line. The only sound speaker systems
permitted are for drive- through windows for uses such as banks or fast food restaurants. Some uses listed in
Exhibit A are subject to additional setback restrictions from the south property line.
* * * Measured from lake control elevation.
* * ** Measured from the Preserve Tract, structural buffers are permitted within the setback area. See also the
CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C -1).
* * * * * Not permitted within 400 feet from the south property line.
As shown in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding land use
and zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is bounded to the east and
west by PUD zoned projects that allow various commercial retail and office uses. To the north,
across Pine Ridge Road, is similarly zoned land. The land to the east is only partially developed
with an office complex; that 9± acre known as the Pine Ridge Center West PUD, allows a
minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet and front yard setback of 25 feet along Pine Ridge Road.
Buildings in this PUD can be up to three stories high or 40 feet high, whichever is less. The list
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 9 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
PRINCIPAL USES
ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA
10,000 sq. ft.
N/A
AVERAGE LOT WIDTH
100 ft.
N/A
MINIMUM YARDS (External)
From Pine Ridge Road ROW
25 ft.
SPS
From Eastern Project Boundary
25 ft.*
15 ft.
From Western Project Boundary
25 ft.
15 ft.
From Southern Project Boundary **
90 ft. (two stories)
120 ft. (three stories)
25 ft.
MINIMUM YARDS (Internal)
Internal Drives (from edge of driveway pavement)
15 ft.
10 ft.
From Internal Tract Boundaries
15 ft.
10 ft.
Lakes
20 ft. * **
20 ft. * **
Preserves
25 ft. * * **
10 ft. * * **
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS
'h the sum of zoned building
heights
10 ft.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
(Either with or without parking in these structures)
ZONED
ACTUAL
Retail Buildings (two stories)
35 ft.
45 ft.
25 ft.
Office Buildings (three stories)
40 ft.
50 ft.
35 ft.
Hotel and Motel (three stories)
40 ft.
50 ft.
35 ft.
Hotel and Motel (four stories) * * * **
50 ft.
60 ft.
35 ft.
Grou Housing (three stories)
40 ft.
50 ft.
35 ft.
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA
1,000 sq. ft.
N/A
SPS = same as principal use setback.
* No setback is required from the east property line provided a unified plan is approved with the Pine Ridge
West PUD.
** No sound speaker systems within 400 feet of the south property line. The only sound speaker systems
permitted are for drive- through windows for uses such as banks or fast food restaurants. Some uses listed in
Exhibit A are subject to additional setback restrictions from the south property line.
* * * Measured from lake control elevation.
* * ** Measured from the Preserve Tract, structural buffers are permitted within the setback area. See also the
CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C -1).
* * * * * Not permitted within 400 feet from the south property line.
As shown in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding land use
and zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is bounded to the east and
west by PUD zoned projects that allow various commercial retail and office uses. To the north,
across Pine Ridge Road, is similarly zoned land. The land to the east is only partially developed
with an office complex; that 9± acre known as the Pine Ridge Center West PUD, allows a
minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet and front yard setback of 25 feet along Pine Ridge Road.
Buildings in this PUD can be up to three stories high or 40 feet high, whichever is less. The list
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 9 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
of allowable uses it divided into three development parcels, A, B and C, with limited uses %..,
allowed in areas B and C which are located closer to the Brynwood Preserve subdivision.
To the west is a fire and rescue station. Also to the west, the Baldridge PUD (developed as the
Marquesa Plaza) allows a retail and office uses with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet
with 25 -foot wide required setbacks along Pine Ridge Road, Livingston Road and the eastern
property line. A 50 -foot wide setback is required along the south property line where the project
abuts the Brynwood Preserve subdivision. Building height is limited to 35 feet for retail and
general commercial uses, and general and medical office uses are limited to three stories with a
40 -foot maximum height. The Baldridge PUD also abuts Brynwood Preserve subdivision to the
south and a 100+ foot wide preserve area separates the buildings in the Baldridge PUD from the
homes within Brynwood Preserve.
In the current petition, the petitioner wishes to be allowed to have Eating Places (Group 5812)
uses as shown in the PUD document Exhibit A.I.34. Pursuant to PUD document Section B.III.C,
the project can be developed with a Drinking Places (GROUP 5813) as accessory uses to Eating
Places. Exhibit B.I would allow this combined use within 90 feet of the south property line.
Staff evaluated this petition for compatibility and has determined that those proposed uses could
create a situation where customers may congregate outside a restaurant where liquor is served
that could adversely impact the nearly residential neighborhood. A similar situation arose in the
Stevie Tomato's establishment located in the Richland PUD. This business is located in the
shopping center at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. Neighbors went
to the Board of County Commissioners voicing complaints about the noise from that
establishment. The Stevie Tomatoes business is located approximately 150 feet from the nearest
residential property line. Staff wants to avoid a similar situation and recommends that stand-
alone Eating Places (Group 5812) that also have Drinking Places (Group 5813) be prohibited in
the southerly 400 feet of this project.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed maximum zoned building heights proposed in the project
are compatible with the area given the locational limitations proposed for the taller use structures
such as hotels and motels.
Deviation Discussion:
The petitioner is seeking seven deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are
listed in PUD Exhibit E.
Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1, to increase the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) from
0.45 to 0.60 for group housing/continuing care retirement community.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
The justification for this deviation has been supported by the CCPC and BCC with
accommodations for a broader range amenities required by continuing care retirement
communities to reduce the amount of offsite travel.
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 10 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. As noted by the petitioner, this allowance has been approved in other projects.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding
that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safetv and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of
such regulations."
Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1, Sidewalks and Bike Paths requirements that
requires sidewalks on both sides of the street. The deviation is to not require sidewalks on either side
of the street if a sidewalk network is provided which continuously connects all development tracts to
each other, to Pine Ridge Road, and to the east and west neighboring tracts.
Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation:
The justification for this deviation is that pedestrian pathways and sidewalks will connect
all development tracts just as they would along the interconnecting roadway. The
proposed pedestrian access will allow access closer to building and parking areas and
will have dedicated crosswalks at roadway crossings. It will also connect to the
neighboring east and west developments. Largely for safety reasons, and since the
internal main roadway will carry traffic from this property and adjoining development, it
is preferable to maintain separation between pedestrians and the traffic.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation finding
that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safetv and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is `justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of
such regulations."
Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.H, Fences and Walls that requires when
nonresidential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, said
nonresidential development shall provide a masonry wall or prefabricated concrete wall or fence. The
deviation is not to require a wall or fence along the south property line where a lake or the southwest
preserve area lies between the commercial developed area and the south property line.
Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation:
The justification for this deviation is that a lake and the southwest preserve in
combination with north buffer of the neighboring Brynwood Preserve will provide ample
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 11 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
screening and buffering between this project's development areas and neighboring
residential development. The developed site in the southeast corner will provide an
enhanced Type B landscape buffer, wall and natural preserve.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: As shown in the excerpt from the Master Plan below, the
applicant wishes to utilize the proposed lake and preserve to provide the required buffering to
separate this project's southeastern corner from the Brynwood Preserve subdivision residents.
This circumstance also provides similarities with the Stevie Tomato's issue in the Richland PUD
noted earlier. During the rezoning process the preserve area near the shopping center were
deemed adequate to address incompatible uses. However, subsequent to the rezoning action, the
preserve area was damaged by several fires, which reduced the amount and thickness of the
preserve vegetation. The fires reduced the preserve area's ability to buffer the uses.
In the Marquesa Shopping Center (the neighboring property), another issue arises regarding
native preserve areas that act as buffers. In that instance, the preserve remains in place without
any fire damage, however during the winter months when the Brynwood Preserve subdivision
residents possibly have more windows and doors open and spend more time outdoors, the
deciduous trees and other plants within the preserve do not provide as much noise attenuation
because the leaves are dropped during that time of year.
Additionally, in 2003, the county granted an administrative fence waiver that alleviated the
requirement to place a fence along the south property line separating the Marquesa Plaza
Shopping Center from the Brynwood Preserve subdivision [AVA- 2003 -AR- 3930]. That approval
was based upon the 100 -foot wide preserve area that separates the two uses. However, there
have been complaints from residents of the subdivision regarding noise from a tire store that is
located at the southernmost portion of the Marquesa Plaza. Apparently the bay doors of the tire
store face the outdoor use areas of the homes, and the noise emanating from the establishment
are offensive to the neighbors (see NIM notes).
The petitioner is proposing to include an enhanced buffer and setback area along the eastern half
of the south property line; the deviation would only be affective in the western portion of the site.
The petitioner has included additional stipulations in the PUD document to alleviate staff s
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 12 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
concerns with the proposed deviation: 1) limit the location of uses that could create negative
impacts to the neighbors, such as tire stores and gas stations; 2) limit the orientation of said uses
such that overhead doors will not be oriented toward residential uses; 3) provide much wider
preserve and lake areas.
However, staff is not convinced that it would be in the best interests of the residents of the
Brynwood Preserve to approve this deviation, especially in light of the proposed PUD that would
allow Eating and Drinking Places within 90 feet of the south property line.
In the Naples Gateway PUD (Ordinance 00 -14) that is located across Pine Ridge Road from the
subject site, during the rezoning process, the residents of Livingston Woods were quite adamant
that not only a wall be constructed, but enhanced buffering had to provided and said buffering
had to be placed along the residential side of that wall.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL of this deviation, finding
that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not demonstrated that "the
element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the
deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations."
Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 which requires a 60 -foot right -of -way
width for local streets. The deviation is to allow for a 40 -foot wide private roadway easement or
right -of -way. (See cross section on Exhibit C -1 CPUD Master Plan).
Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation:
The justification for this deviation is that the proposed cross section is adequate to meet
the ingress and egress needs and drainage and utilities requirements of the proposed
CPUD.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation finding
that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of
such regulations."
Deviation 5A seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.9.a, pertaining to setbacks for on
premises directional signs which requires directional signs to maintain a setback 10 feet from the
edge of the roadway, paved surface or the back of the curb. This deviation would allow the
directional signs to be located 5 feet from the edge of roadway pavement as depicted on the
CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C).
Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation:
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 13 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
The justification for this deviation of reducing this setback is that these signs are a
convenience to the motoring public by placing the directional signs closer to the
roadway to enhance their visibility. This will not contravene the public, health, safety
and welfare. The controlled speed at the entrances will further insure this.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding
that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of
such regulations."
Deviation 5B seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.b which requires pole and ground signs
to be setback 10 feet from property line. This deviation is to allow the directional signs to be set
back 3 feet from the property line to the east and west interconnecting access road entrances as
depicted on the CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit Q.
Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation:
The justification for this deviation is that these signs will have more convenient visual
exposure to motorists as they enter the development to their intended destination.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding
that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of
such regulations."
Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.9.b, which allows on- premises directional
signs to be combined into a single sign 64 square feet in area. This deviation is to allow two
directional signs, each up to 64 square feet in area at the east and west interconnecting access
road entrances as depicted on the CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit Q.
Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation:
The justification for this deviation is that directional visibility can be provided at each
entrance of the east and west connector roads to better direct ingressing vehicles to
their intended destination from the two points of interconnection.
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 14 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17112
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation finding
that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived_ _without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of
such regulations."
Deviation No. 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3, pertaining to directory signs which
allows multiple - occupancy parcels or multiple parcels developed under a unified development
plan with a minimum of 8 independent units and containing 25,000 square feet of leasable floor
area to be permitted on a directory sign and which allows a minimum of 4 panels and a
maximum of 8 panels. This deviation is to allow a minimum of 2 independent panels to be
displayed on directory sign at the project entrance on Pine Ridge Road as depicted on the CPUD
Master Plan (Exhibit C). Four or more independent tenants /users shall be permitted to have a 150
SF directory sign per LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3.C. Two or three independent tenants /users shall
have a maximum 100 SF directory sign.
Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation:
The justification for this deviation is that there may be as few as two tenants /users
including one on Pine Ridge Road. Any tenants /users behind this will have no exposure
to Pine Ridge Road and motorists would have no way of recognizing the existence of
another establishment without the aid of signage on Pine Ridge Road. Allowing a
minimum of two tenants /users to be displayed on the directory sign is a convenience to
the motoring public so they will be able to clearly identify all establishments from Pine
Ridge Road.
Furthermore, if an office building was developed to the south of the Pine Ridge Road
frontage it could have multiple tenants. For example, an office building could have
medical uses and clinics, banks, real estate offices that also may wish to be located on
the directory sign depending on the composition of end users in the PUD for the
convenience of the motoring public.
The reason for limiting the size of the directory sign to 100 SF for two or three
tenants /users is to reduce the size of the sign in recognition that it justifies the need for
less sign area. However, four or more tenants /users shall be permitted to have a 150 SF
directory sign (as allowed by LDC) as a convenience to the motoring public so the sign
is readily visible from Pine Ridge Road and not dissimilar to the size of other signs on
this roadway.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved.
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 15 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation finding
that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived without_ adetrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of
such regulations."
FINDINGS OF FACT:
LDC Subsection 10.03.05.I.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall
show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires
the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the
additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold,
non - italicized font]:
PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the
CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria"
(Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
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.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses are compatible with the approved uses and
existing development in the area, as further limited by staff requiring the revision of
Exhibit B.V.C. to state the following:
Stand -alone Eating Places (Group 5812) that also have Drinking Places (Group
5813) are prohibited in the southerly 400 feet of this project.
In addition, as limited above, the proposed property development regulations provide
adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern of
development in the area.
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, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be
required to obtain platting and /or site development approval. Both processes will ensure
that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and
maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer.
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 16 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
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 if staffs additional limitation noted in #1 above is included to ensure
compliance with FLUE Policy 5.4.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the
proposed uses, development standards and developer commitments will help ensure that
this project is compatible with the surrounding area if staffs additional limited noted in 91
above is included in any approval recommendation.
S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the
LDC.
6 The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project as noted
in the GMP FLUE and Transportation Element consistency review, if the mitigation
proposed by the petitioner is included in any approval recommendation. In addition, the
project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management
regulations when development approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and
potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by
the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed
when development approvals are sought.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting
public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The petitioner is seeking seven deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the
purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A).
This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and
deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 17 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes with the exception
of Deviation #3 that staff is not supporting, the deviations can be supported, finding that, in
compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of
the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.5.11, the petitioner has demonstrated that the
deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the
staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations.
Rezone Findin $ts: LDC Subsection 10. 03.051 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, & policies of
the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Staff is recommending that this project be found consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4
requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development and with all other
applicable policies of the GMP if any approval recommendation contains the limitation
shown in PUD Finding #1 above and if Deviation 93 is denied.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and
Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis.
Staff believes the proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and
development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance and recommended by staff.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the abutting
lands are also zoned PUD.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn since the
zoning boundary mirrors the existing property boundary.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with
the LDC provisions to seek such changes and the project's consistency with the GMP.
However the site is currently zoned Rural Agricultural while located in an urban GMP
land use designation, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Thus it seems logical to rezone the site
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 18 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
to allow development with more intense uses.
6 Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, subject to the proposed list of uses and
property development regulations and the proposed Development Commitments detailed
in Exhibit F, along with staffs recommended limitation, is consistent with the County's
land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP.
Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in 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.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this
time subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD
ordinance.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the
LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce
the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other
specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the
applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This
project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances
between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to
adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or
external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors
including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value
determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be
marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Properties surrounding this site to the north (across Pine Ridge Road), west and south are
already developed. The site to the east is partially developed. The proposed changes in this
rezone petition are not anticipated to be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property.
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 19 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7117/12
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public
policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said
Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant
of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public
welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning;
The property could be developed within the parameters of the existing agricultural zoning;
however, the proposed zoning more correctly reflects the intent of development allowed in
the GMP. In any case, however, the petitioner is seeking this rezone in compliance with
LDC provisions for such action to seek the highest and best use of the land. The petition
can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing
process. Staff believes the proposed rezone 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;
As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing property
ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale,
density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban -
designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards
and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the
needs of the community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed;
however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a
particular zoning petition. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with
the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific
petition. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of
the staff report.
16 The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 20 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site
alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state,
and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval
process and again later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and
as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,
as amended.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria 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, except as it
may be exempt by federal regulations. 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 with
the commitments contained in the PUD document.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant's agent, Patrick Vanasse, Planning Director of RWA conducted a duly noticed
NIM on January 30, 2012, at the Hawthorne Suites located at 3557 Pine Ridge Road in Naples,
Florida. There were eight (8) residents in attendance at the meeting. In addition, the consultants
representing the Petitioner, included Philip Fischler, P.E., Richard Yovanovich, Esquire, Bob
Duane, AICP, George H. Hermanson, P.E., and David Wheeler, Transportation Consultant were
in attendance.
Richard Yovanovich made the presentation. He described the permitted uses and proposed
development standards with an emphasis on building heights and setbacks. The proposed
building height was 60 feet for two stories along the south property line and 120 feet for three
stories from the south property line. Mr. Yovanovich noted that a four story building for a
hotel/motel was permitted 400 feet from the south property line.
Aerial photos and line of site exhibits were displayed depicting the location and orientation of
the buildings throughout the project. Mr. Yovanovich pointed out that the line -of -site exhibits
with the existing vegetations in place would screen and buffer buildings from Brynwood
Preserve. (Additional plantings along the south property line in Brynwood Center would further
augment screening along with the proposed wall).
Mr. Yovanovich emphasized that many uses were not permitted in the 400 -foot setback area
depicted on the aerial photo and as further set forth in the permitted use handout distributed at
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 21 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
the meeting. He noted that automotive uses were restricted to 600 feet from the south property
line. He also noted that restrictions have been placed in the CPUD for eating and drinking places
including restaurants and lounge area that may be included in a hotel/motel on the southern
portion of the property (for example, limiting them to the northern portion of a structure at this
location.) The CPUD Conceptual Plan was also made available at the meeting.
Resident concerns brought up at the meeting included the following:
The width of the proposed preserve area on a portion of the southern property. One resident
preferred the width of the preserve area in the Baldridge PUD to the west. This preserve area is
approximately 150 feet wide. The proposed preserve areas within the Brynwood Center CPUD
varies from 250± feet in width along the southwestern portion of the property and narrows to 35±
feet along the southeastern portion of the property plus a 15- foot -wide landscaped buffer and
solid wall. An additional 40± foot buffer area exists along the northern edge of Brynwood
Preserve. Mr. Yovanovich explained that a 120 -foot setback was provided for projects in excess
of two stories to show further separation from the Brynwood Preserve PUD. There were
concerns that a wider buffer area should be provided. Mr. Yovanovich indicated that he would
meet again with residents to review this issue further.
Concerns were expressed by several residents about the noise in the tire store in the southern
portion of the Baldridge PUD to the west. Mr. Yovanovich noted again the that the PUD required
similar types of automotive uses to be setback 600 feet from the southern property line and that
bay doors were oriented east and west to reduce noise. The tire store in Baldridge PUD has the
bay doors oriented to the south.
One resident did not want the project built and believed there were too many vacant or un-
needed buildings in the market already.
Richard indicated that the property was zoned for agriculture use and this was never the intended
use of the property. Furthermore, the proposed commercial zoning was consistent with the
Growth Management Plan that allowed the proposed commercial uses. The same resident
thought the plan was too vague and did not provide enough specifics or assurances to residents.
He spoke of the "trust us" mentality. Mr. Yovanovich reiterated the development standards
provided ample protection and that this was not a speculative project. He noted that when the
market recovers end users will come forward. There are presently no specific plans for end users.
Some questions were asked by residents about project access, and the pattern of access emerging
along Pine Ridge Road. Mr. Yovanovich indicated that access was right in right out, similar to
some other projects in the area with a westbound left turn lane into the property. It was also
noted that connections were provided to the east and west to help better distribute project traffic.
Some general questions were brought up regarding water management. George Hermanson
indicated that the project would be filled to the elevation of similar properties in the area and
would drain to the north.
One resident noted that the vegetation along the north property line of Brynwood Preserve shown
in the aerial photos varied in its quality throughout the year and the photos taken may be a best
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 22 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
case scenario. After the meeting, one resident expressed her desire that the wall be painted
brown. Project representatives agreed to this request.
The meeting came to a close at approximately 6:30 p.m. Mr. Yovanovich noted that we will get
together again with the residents of Brynwood Preserve to go over with them solutions to
concerns raised at the meeting.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on July 16, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County
Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ- PL20110000406 to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval subject to the following:
1. Revise Exhibits A and B to indicate the following:
Eating Places (Group 5812) with outdoor patios that are not associated with a hotel or
motel use, are prohibited in the southerly 400 feet of this project.
2. Revise Exhibit E to remove Deviation #3, as staff is recommending denial of this
deviation.
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center Page 23 of 24
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/12
PREPARED BY:
)� U&rlt"'
KAY bEgELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
REVIEWED BY:
RAYM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
MIKE BOSI, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
Un
NICK CASALANGUIDA, A0kffNISTIATOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
7/
DATE
-7- /6-!Z
DATE
-7-1-7-IL
DATE
D TE
Tentatively scheduled for the September 25, 2012 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
PUDZ- PL2011- 0000406, Brynwood Center
August 2, 2012 CCPC
Revised 7/5/12
Page 23 of 23
ORDINANCE NO. 12-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
REAL PROPERTY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING
DISTRICT WITIi AN "ST" OVERLAY TO A COMMERCIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT
FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE BRYNWOOD
CENTER CPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM
OF 145,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND OFFICE USES
WHICH INCLUDE A MAXIMUM OF 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF
RETAIL AND A MAXIMUM OF 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF
MEDICAL OFFICE USES. ALSO PERMITTED ARE HOTEL AND
MOTEL USES AT 20 UNITS PER ACRE AND GROUP HOUSING
(ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND INDEPENDENT LIVING
UNITS) AT A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .60. FOR EACH ACRE
OF GROUP HOUSING OR HOTEL OR MOTEL USE, 10,626
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL OR OFFICE USE SHALL BE
SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALLOWABLE
COMMERCI.AL SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE PROJECT IS
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY 980 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD AND PINE RIDGE ROAD IN SECTION 18,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 13.65 + /1 ACRES; AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich,
Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing First Community Bank of
Southwest Florida, 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:
Mynwood Center CPUD/ Paae 1 of 3
PUDZ -PL201 1 -406
Rev. 07/18/12
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 18,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from an Agricultural (A)
Zoning District with an ST Overlav to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)
Zoning District for a project to be known as the Brynwood Center CPUD to allow construction
of a maximum of 145,000 square feet of retail and office uses which include a maximum of
25,000 square feet of retail and a maximum of 60,000 square feet of medical office uses. Also
permitted are hotel and motel uses at 20 units per acre and group housing (assisted living facility
and independent living units) at a floor area ratio of .60. For each acre of group housing or hotel
or motel use, 10,626 square feet of retail or office use shall be subtracted from the total amount
of allowable commercial square footage in accordance with Exhibits "A" through "F ", attached
hereto and incorporated herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in
Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended; the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are
hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon tiling with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this
ATTEST:
DWIGIIT E. BROCK, CLERK
By:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
t V
Heidi Ashton -Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Brynwood Center CPUD / Pnge 2of 3
P U DZ -P L.2011-406
Rev. 07/ 18/ 12
day of , 2012.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
Attachments: Exhibit A — List of Permitted Uses
Exhibit B — Development Standards
Exhibit C -1 A — Master Plan
Exhibit C -1.B — Master Plan
Exhibit C -2 — Enhanced Type "B" Landscape Buffer & Preserve
Exhibit D — Legal. Description
Exhibit E — List of Requested Deviations
Exhibit F — List of Developer Commitments
CP\1 t- CPS -01 It 1168
Brynwood Center CPUD/ Page 3of 3
PUDZ -PL201 1-406
Rev. 07/18/12
BRYNWOOD CENTER CPUD
L PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in
ti-hole or in part, for other than the following,:
A.
Commercial Uses
I.
Accounting, Auditing and Bookkeeping Services
(8721)
2.
Apparel and Accessory Stores
(5611)*
3.
Architectural Services
(8712)
4.
Automobile and Home Supply Stores
(5531)*
5.
Automobile Service and repair shops general
(7538) **
6.
Banks, commnercial: national
(6021)
7.
Banks, cotnrnercial: state
(6022)
8.
Banks, commercial: Not Federally Chartered
(6029)
9.
Banks, savings: Federal
(6035)
10.
Banks, savings: Not Federally Chartered
(6036)
11.
Barber Shops
(7241)*
12.
Beauty Shops
(7231)*
13.
Book Stores
(5942)*
14.
Business Consulting Services - not elsewhere classified
(8748)
15.
Camera Stores
(5946)*
16.
Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning
(7217)*
17.
Candy, Nut and Confectionery Stores
(5441)*
18.
Children's and Infants' Wear Stores
(5641)*
19.
Chiropractors Offices & Clinics
(8041)
20.
Commercial Economic, Sociological and Educational Research
(8732)
21.
Commercial Physical and Biological Research
(8731)
22.
Computer and Computer Software Stores
(5734)"
23.
Credit Unions, Federally Chartered
(6061)
24.
Credit Unions, State: Not Federally Chartered
(6062)
25.
Dairy Products Stores
(5451)
26.
Dental Laboratories
(8072)
27.
Dentist Offices & Clinics
(8021)
28.
Department Stores
(5311)*
29.
Doctors - Medicine Offices & Clinics
(8011)
30.
Doctors - Osteopathy Offices & Clinics
(8031)
31.
Doctors - Chiropractors Offices & Clinics
(8041)
32.
Drapery, Curtain and Upholstery Stores
(5714)*
Brymwood Center CRUD/
PUDZ- PL2011 -406
Rev, 07/18/12
Page 1 of 16
33.
Drug Stores and Propriety Stores
(5912)*
34.
Eating Places
(5812)*;:-***
35.
Engineering Services
(8711)
36.
Facilities Support Management Services
(8744)
37.
Family Clothing Stores
(5651)*
38.
Floor Covering Stores
(5713)*
39.
Florists
(5992)*
40.
Fruit and Vegetable Markets
(5431)*
41.
Funeral Service only (excluding Crematories)
(7261)*
42.
Furniture Stores
(5712)`'`
43.
Garment Pressing and Agents for Laundries and Drycleaners
(7212)*
44.
Gasoline Stations
(5541) * * **
45.
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
(8062)
46.
General Merchandise Stores (groups)
(531 l )
47.
Grocery Stores
(541 l )
48.
Hardware Store
(5251)*
49.
Health and Allied Services - not elsewhere classified
(8099)
50.
Health practitioners Offices & Clinics - not elsewhere classified
(8049)
51.
Home Furniture, Furnishing and Equipment Stores
(5712)*
52.
Home health care services
(8082)
53.
Hotels and Motels
(7011)
54.
Household Appliance Stores
(5722)*
55.
Insurance Agents, Brokers and Service
(6411)
56.
Kidney Dialysis Centers
(8092)
57.
I.,egal Services
(8111)
58.
Management Consulting Services
(8742)
59.
Management Services
(8741)
60.
lvieat and Fish (Seafood) Markets, including Freezer Provisioners
(5421)*
61.
Medical Laboratories
(8071)
62.
Men's and Boy's Clothing and Accessory Stores
(5611)*
63.
Miscellaneous Apparel and Accessory Stores
(5699)*
64.
Miscellaneous Food Stores
(5499)`
65.
Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores
(5399)"
66.
Miscellaneous I- lomefurnishings Stores
(5719)'•'
67.
Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified
(7299)
excluding massage parlors, steam baths, tattoo parlors and Turkish
baths
68.
Miscellaneous Retail Stores - not elsewhere classified
(5999)*
69.
Musical Instrument Stores
(5736)*
70.
Noncommercial Research Organizations
(8733)
71.
Nursing and Personal Care Facilities - not elsewhere classified
(8059)
72.
Optical Goods Stores
(5995)*
73.
Optometrists - Offices & Clinics
(8042)
74.
Paint, Glass & Wallpaper Stores
(5231)"
75.
Photographic Studios, Portrait
(7221)
76.
Physical Fitness Facilities
(7991)
B ynwood Center CPUD/ Page 2 of 16
PUDZ- PL2011 -406
Rev. 07/18/12
77.
Podiatrists — Offices & Clinics
(8043)
78.
Public Relations Services
(8743)
79.
Radio, Television and Consumer Electronics Stores
(5731)*
80.
Real Estate Agents and Managers
(6531)
81.
Record and Prerecorded Tape Stores (adult video rental or sales
(5735)*
prohibited)
82.
Retail Bakeries
(5461)*
83.
Retail Nurseries, Lawn & Garden Supply Stores
(5261)*
84.
Shoe Repair Shops and Shoeshine Parlors
(7251)*
85.
Shoe Stores
(5661)*
86.
Specialty Hospitals, except psychiatric
(8069)
87.
Specialty Outpatient Facilities — not elsewhere classified
(8069)
88.
Sporting Goods Stores and Bicycle Shops
(5941)*
89.
Surveying Services
(8713)
90.
Tax Return Preparation Services
(7291)
91.
Testing Laboratories
(8734)
92.
Travel Agencies
(4724)
93.
Used Furniture Stores
(5932)
94.
Variety Stores
(5331)"
95.
Veterinary Services for Animal Specialties with no outdoor
(0742)"
kenneling
96.
Video Tape Rental, (adult video rental or sales prohibited)
(7841)*
97.
Women's Accessory and Specialty Stores
(5632)"
98.
Women's Clothing Stores
(5621)"
* Prohibited within 400 feet of the south property line.
Prohibited within 600 feet of the south property line (see also Exhibit B. Section
V).
** Prohibited within 400 feet of the south property line except as an accessory use to
a hotel /motel (see also Exhibit B. Section V).
** Allowed only on Pine Ridge Road frontage (see also Exhibit B, Section IV).
* ` ** No outdoor music, television or open windows shall be permitted other than for a
pass - through for food service.
B. Preserve areas.
C. Any other commercial or professional use comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with the purpose and intent of the
district determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the LDC.
II. PERMITTED PRINCIPAL. USES FOR GROUP HOUSING /RETIREMENT
COMMUNITY USES THROUGHOUT THIS CPUD
A. Group Housing 8051; Skilled Nursing, Intermediate Care Facilities 8052, Nursing
and Personal Care not else classified 8059.
Brymvood Center CPUD/ Page 3 of 16
P U DZ -PL201 l -406
Rev. 07/1 8/12
B. Independent living units *.
C. Assisted living units`.
D. Retirement community *.
See also Section 5.05.04.1), Group Housing of the LDC for use of terms and
standards for these housing types.
III. PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
A. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted uses of The
CPUD document.
B. Eating places (Group 581.2), only in conjunction with hotel/motel use if located
within 400 feet of the south property line.
C_ Drinking places (Group 5813); only in conjunction with eating places or
hotelhnotel use.
D. Exterior speakers for drive - through facilities such as a bank or fast food restaurant
orAy outside the 400 -foot setback area from the south property line.
E. Signs as permitted in the LDC.
F. Storrnwater Management Areas.
G. Swimming pools and recreational facilities such as tennis courts for hotel /motel
guests.
H. Parking (7521.) except tow -in parking lots.
I. Any other accessory and related use that is determined to be comparable in nature
with the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals; pursuant to the LDC.
Brynwood Center CPUD/ Page 4 of 16
P U DZ- PL201 1 -406
Rev. 07/18/12
i
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
BRYNWOOD CENTER CPUD
The table below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Brynlwood Center
CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections
of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CPUD DISTRICT
SPS = same as principal use setback
* No setback is required from the east property line provided a unified plan is approved with. the Pine Ridge
West PUD.
*" No sound speaker systems within 400 feet of the south property line. The only sound speaker systems
permitted are for drive - through windows for uses such as banks or fast food restaurants. Some uses listed in
Exhibit A are subject to additional setback restrictions from the south property line.
** Measured from lake control elevation.
*� * Measured fi•om the Preserve Tract, structural buffers are permitted within the setback area. See also the
CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C -1).
* * ** Not permitted within 400 feet from the south property line.
Brymrood Center CPUD/ Page 5 of 16
PUDZ- PL.201 1 -406
Rev. 07/18/12
PRINCIPAL USES
ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA
10,000 sq. ft.
N/A
AVERAGE LOT WIDTH
10011.
N,A
MINIMUM YARDS (External)
Prom Pine Ridge Road ROW
25 ft.
SPS
From Eastern Project Boundary
25 ft.*
15 11
Prom Western Project Boundary
25 ft.
15 ft.
From Southern Project Boundary **
90 ft. (two stories)
12Q ft. (three stories)
25 ft'
MINIMUM YARDS (internal)
Internal Drives (from edge of driveway pavement)
15 ft.
10 ft.
From Internal Tract Boundaries
15 ft.
10 ft.
Lakes
20 ft. * **
20 11. * **
Preserves
25 ft. * * **
I0 ft * * **
.
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS
_
'/ the sum of zoned building
heights
10 ft.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Lither with or without parking in these structures)
ZONED
CTUAL
Retail Buildings (two stories)
3S 11.
5 ft.
25 ft.
Office Buildings (three stories)
4011.
-0 ft.
35 f1.
Hotel and Motel (three stories)
40 ft.
150 ft
3511.
Hotel and Motel (four stories)* * * **
5011-
�0 ft.
35 fl.
Group Housing (three stories)
40 ft.
0 I
35 ft.
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA
1,000 sq. 11.
N;A
SPS = same as principal use setback
* No setback is required from the east property line provided a unified plan is approved with. the Pine Ridge
West PUD.
*" No sound speaker systems within 400 feet of the south property line. The only sound speaker systems
permitted are for drive - through windows for uses such as banks or fast food restaurants. Some uses listed in
Exhibit A are subject to additional setback restrictions from the south property line.
** Measured from lake control elevation.
*� * Measured fi•om the Preserve Tract, structural buffers are permitted within the setback area. See also the
CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C -1).
* * ** Not permitted within 400 feet from the south property line.
Brymrood Center CPUD/ Page 5 of 16
PUDZ- PL.201 1 -406
Rev. 07/18/12
11. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP HOUSING /RETIREMENT
COMMUNITY
Group housing /retirement community uses described in Exhibit A, Section II shall
provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards:
A. The facility shall be for residents 55 nears of age and older.
B. There shall be on -site dining for the residents.
C. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of
grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be
provided for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to
medical office visits.
D. There shall be an on -site manager /activities coordinator to assist residents with
their individual needs. The manager /coordinator shall also be responsible for
arranging trips to off -site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music
and other entertainment for the residents at the on -site clubhouse.
E. A wellness center shall be provided on -site. Exercise and other fitness programs
shall. be provided for the residents.
F. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency set-vice providers in the event of
medical or other emergency.
G. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments
(handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and
regulation.
I11. HOURS OF OPERATION
There shall be no loading or unloading within 400 feet from the south property line
before 7:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday for any permitted use.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS USE RESTRICTIONS
A. Certain uses are prohibited within 400 feet of the south property line as provided
in Exhibit A, Section I.
B. Automobile service and repair shops and similar types of permitted uses such as
tire dealers shall conduct all activities within enclosed structures. Bay doors may
not be oriented to the south. This use is not permitted less than 600 feet from the
south property line.
Brynwood Center CPUD/ Page 6 of 16
PU DZ -PL201 1 -406
Rev. 07/18/12
C. Gas Stations shall be limited to frontage on Pine Ridge Road only.
V. EATING PLACES AND DRINKING PLACES AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A
HOTEL /MOTEL
Eating and drinking places are allowed in conjunction with a hotel /motel within 400 feet
to the south property line and shall be subject to the following requirements:
A. They shall be accessory uses to a hotel or motel with no sign identification.
B. They shall be located in the northern portion of the building.
C. No outdoor music, televisions or open windows other than a pass - through window
for food service shall be permitted.
D. They shall be limited to serving only hotel patrons with room keys.
E. The drinking place shall be limited to a maximum of 25 seats.
VI. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES
A. Commercial Area
1. Intensity: A maximum of 145,000 SF of gross floor area which includes
up to 25,000 SF of retail; 60,000 SF or more of general office; and no
more than 60,000 SF of medical office.
2. Conversion: The maximum allowable gross floor area of 145,000 SF shall
be reduced by 10,622 SF for each acre of hotelhnotel or group housing or
fraction thereof.
B. Group Housing /Retirement Community Uses
With conversion noted in VI, A.2 above, a maximum 0.60 floor area ratio
(F.A.R.).
C. Hotel /Motel
With conversion noted in VI, A.2 above, a maximum of 20 units per acre.
D. Acreage of preserve areas in excess of 1.65 acres and lake area shall be included
in the calculation of densities and F.A.R.'s. (The first 1.65 acres of preserve area
shall not be counted because it is required to reduce the project area to 12 acres to
meet the infill criteria).
Br Inwood Center CPUD/ Page 7 of 16
PU DZ -PL201 1 -406
Rev. 07!18/12
VII. ENHANCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SOUTH PROPERTY LINE)
Exhibit C -2 is attached and depicts an enhanced landscape buffer and preserve area along
the south property line. Within this buffer area are 14 to 18 -foot trees spaced no more
than 20 feet on centers. These trees shall be staggered in heights and on centers with a 6-
foot high wall provided as depicted on Exhibits C -1 and C -2.
Brynwood Center CPUD/ Page 8 of 16
PUDZ -PL201 1 -406
Rev. 07/ 18/12
S3ldYN 30 M1 1
M 'ri as _
K N
N
.`. ~
__ —C z:. •• . .
-�• �
� a
~ '
a t
to
. . 1 . a
a N
N
ill I
Iam S3oW z i
i' P W
W[
tu
.... .........._.am•i.a�laj 1 W 4 Z Z f!� <b • 1 •� .-°! . ' • �� a
ca
9« Uci¢
IJ ?x S I I O- g� n w h
O OU O.
W ���-- yyyW+++ a Ill
RZ>F •e tAYy� ippS Z \ �Om Z
, I Nd3< 1� Y �1�� U
�m I iuuyo 111 ��o
n
F G • .
n
-- --- - - - - -- I <N < c o a ti
a a o ro i
ga g• Yg� I l 1� '1�1 fl { S..
a al
0 o I Il
all a a
at
LU
4 4t Y J
p N 2 V
ul
U
to icy
d cr i Z0Z 2.+' I ¢ yU Y QGG pW .yy
Ca3� W 6W < L U'Q ~ ' <•ry' P
,< a a$4
Z Zz CCQ77 z= o b' qq t' . Z L
59 IO ego x °@ N"
W iL
I J r
I------------------------------
_.`. -
------------------------------------
I - - - - -- = ! j
,--'I
i
W
ti
n
C!
J�
17
O'
w
Q
w C7
Q
Q
`t N LIf Q
0
T= 0 0
v
° a V) �
d ° 0.
W J
0
Z .¢
X Q w 'z0
wli 0
<
¢W V) Lj dV) J
0.. Cl m LLJ
F-¢
Q
0
QOw 0"
¢
¢ �z 22
a
C0
00
A ow¢-
c
zUdQL_
a QU)LUJZ
H
W rTlw Xw
¢
LU
to
o :�ao
¢
v)L, °=
a
aZ0L' °°
m Lu
d
1 ¢=
°��
��inoF
n
NN<< aQ
Uoa
U
V)
V)O
O
jL_wt-
W
LJ
WW�W
~ ° LL
Q
¢
0 °
NfO�vS
n
lJ
JJZQ L"
¢3 J
=UQ
_
i4
W
� )'- v
U0 a
¢
V) cv O
0
az0 � a-
X F--
W
¢
L,
cn
o
o``cwi zw
0
L y o Zw
c^
a
W
iY
00� -� U
O'er
>W �m W
-H
Z
Wzm U ZQ
Z
OW
x
U ¢
��
..
Q
iZ¢
U
S�
V)
p�V)J O
C) m W
Z Q
¢�
i¢ J J
O
U U U U
Z0
p- W O F-
U)
O
OEJ0S
rn�p0 ti
Q
c�S
¢Q
,.,,
¢¢.[¢
Q
Q
0W?¢ F-F-
<X ¢U
If
v
p�(�
WV,o
q
o0po
rn
F-
2
WF-
w�Q ULj
OJa
O
O FZ��
�OGd
Q>
o°W
Q
W
••
u
@
WO�¢�O
°�`¢ >,,ac
m
ozw¢
o
r0
11 II 11 II
Qmmv Qin
w
Q
N S g ci Li
Q
¢ Ld
x
uj
Z
w 0 -� �-,.. mo w
Q
j
J
�O` <�z
a° La
°W�oaW
1
cWi
W
�v)c=i)�r`t¢
J
X 0 (r
F-
W '�
2 °UO�
E
u�u
I O {>
W
j-
Q
C
��70 °�
��wwU
0.�
wz 2
.,'d
Qj
a
<<
OONOW�Z
W- L. -i I OCQ
r�
W
Z<
Q�OF- �x
Z
L O
Z
04 Wow
m Z
U `•Q
w
0.
Z
c00
°Ua zc4p
O 0
ate@
C'
�
.. O w
�ZZ CO
U)
0W
(n W U
Wwo J-)QW
r7
EL
°
Q
t..
*-
hM)
G7
�FJ-d �ZUK
J
o
=z
z
ZI
Qo
-L20
J
UU��
a � ticZ
J )n °ww z
O
U
0 =ate
U 'n °
WLd>
Z �c
Z_
��'
LLI
wW
fi' o
<<mDF
MD- JD
Ux <mc —D
Q
Q
Z U> J V)
O
W Q W
U.I >
VW) W¢
Vi O W a
0.Qm_
Cl
U °2
OU
O0
Q
<u
WK�<
0
10)9
U
zOU
2 >02�4t:.
aa0.
v
�'
K0.
CV
U P
J ppFF
�T
s�
W
Uw
<UZ�
-
W
OL
0
2�3
i Sy
a
3 J
W< W Z
o
Z
��
ZO
JUZ
i
x
uj
Qa
J�
L_WJ
9
Y
ml
w 0:� u
I
w>
oaU LLli Lj
y a
U W
a lJJ
4
aQ
UfZ
(n
CLI
Z
Fr-Q U x
K
t
Lli
.v y p
z
, ¢ o
<
¢
w
I1
LLJ
'x;
Q
a
c rl W
U
U)
D
w O
En
w r W
o�
V
CJ
e
�
w
U
Q
v
J
Q
3
= ?u
�4
Q
a
Q
UV
z
rr
D
�Z 4z
Q
�-
�-
a< 3:—
Q
7
Ca
m
1�u
QO
cc CC
a
H
°
�
z
_J
2 lz
F-
m
M
O
L
6�
F65
®�
Er
Li lz cc
IL
pO
IL
L D
UJ
LU
LL
CL
Lij
ui
sl
Li
LU
CL
cc lun M.
30 uj�
V.
EXHIBIT I)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
13RYNWOOD CENTER CPUD
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 18,
TOVIINSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS THE-
WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST
1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. LESS PARCEL 116 AS DESCRIBED IN THE LIS PENDES RECORDED IN O.R.
BOOK 2631, PAGE 188 AND ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 2660,
PAGE 3364 AND LESS PARCEL 115 AS DESCRIBED IN THE LIS PENDES RECORDED
IN O.R. BOOK 944, PAGE 494 AND THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RECORDED
IN O.R. BOOK 1185, PAGE 541, CONTAINING 13.650 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Brynwood Center CPUD/ Page 12 of 16
PU D7_ -PL201 1 -4 06
Rev. 07,18(12
EXH1131T E
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS
BRYNWOOD CENTER CPUD
Deviation No. 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D. I to allow the floor area ratio (F.A.R.)
to be increased from 0.45 to 0.60 for group housing/retirement community uses described in
Exhibit A, Section 11.
Deviation No. 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1, Sidewalks and Bike Paths
requirements that requires sidewalks on both sides of the street. The deviation is to not require
sidewalks on either side of the street if a sidewalk network is provided which continuously
connects all development tracts to each other, to Pine Ridge Road, and to the east and west
neighboring tracts.
Deviation No. 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.H, Fences and Walls that requires when
nonresidential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district; said
nonresidential development shall provide a masonry wall or prefabricated concrete wall or fence.
The deviation is not to require a wall or fence along the south property line where a lake or the
southwest preserve area lies between the commercial developed area and the south property line.
Deviation No. 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 which requires a 60 -foot right- of -tr=ay
width for local streets. The deviation is to allow for a 40 -foot wide private roadway easement or
right -of -way. (See cross section on Exhibit C -1 CPUD Master Plan).
Deviation No. 5A seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.9.a, pertaining to setbacks for on
premises directional signs which requires directional signs to maintain a setback 10 feet from the
edge of the roadway, paved surface or the back of the curb. This deviation would allow the
directional signs internal to the development to be located 5 feet from the edge of roadway
pavement as depicted on the CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C-1).
Deviation No. 511 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.I.b which requires pole and ground
signs to be setback 10 feet from property line. This deviation is to allow the directional signs to
be set back 3 feet from the property line only for the east and west interconnecting access road
entrances as depicted on the CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C -1).
Deviation No. 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.9.b, which allows on- premises
directional suns to be combined into a single sign 64 square feet in area. This deviation is to
allow two directional signs, each up to 64 square feet in area at the east and west interconnecting
access road entrances as depicted on the CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C -1).
Deviation No. 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3, pertaining to directory signs which
allows multiple- occupancy parcels or multiple parcels developed under a unified development
plan with a minimum of 8 independent units and containing 25,000 square feet of leasable floor
Brynwood Center CPUD/ Page 13 of 16
PLJDZ -PL201 1 -406
Rev. 07i 18/12
area to be permitted on a directory sign and which allows a minimum of 4 panels and a
maximum of 8 panels. This deviation is to allow a minimum of 2 independent panels to be
displayed on the one directory sign at the project entrance on Pine Ridge Road as depicted on the
CPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C -1). If the developer elects to allow 4 or more independent panels
on the one directory sign, the maximum sign area shall be 150 SF. If the developer elects to have
2 or 3 independent panels on the one directory sign, the maximum sign area shall be 100 SF.
Br;mwood Center CPUD/ Page 14 of 16
PUDZ -PL201 1 -406
Rev. 07/18/12
EXHIBIT F
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
BRYNVVOOD CENTER CPUD
TRANSPORTATION
A. The development within this project shall be limited to 565 unadjusted two -way
PM peak hour trips (or 504 adjusted two -way, PM peak hour trips). The
development within this project shall be limited to 1,044 unadjusted two -way PM
peak hour trips (or 708 adjusted two -way; PM peak hour trips); correspondent to
the highest trip generation scenario of those proposed in the updated traffic study
information dated April 25, 2011 allowing for flexibility in the proposed uses
Without creating unforeseen impacts on the adjacent roadway network. The terms
"adjusted" and "unadjusted" shall reference allowances for pass -by and internal
capture trip reductions. For purposes of calculation of the weekday PM peak hour
trip generation in this CPUD, the lesser of the weekday PM peak hour trips as
calculated in the Institute of Traffic Engineer's (ITE) Report, titled Trip
Generation, 8th Edition or the trip generation as calculated in the then current ITE
Trip Generation Report shall be utilized.
B. Shared access connections shall be provided to the commercial parcels to the east
and west as shown on the Exhibit C -1, CPUD Master Plan. The cross- access
connection and roadway shall be maintained by owner and may be a perpetual,
non exclusive access casement or public right -of -way at no cost to the public. No
parking and no loading shall be permitted directly on the access roadway.
C. The development will be allowed one driveway to Pine Ridge Road constructed at
developer's expense and subject to applicable Collier County permitting
requirements.
D. A bus shelter area approximately 9 feet by 20 feet shall be reserved along the Pine
Ridge Road frontage in an area generally shown on the CPUD Master Plan. The
bus shelter may be located in the landscape buffer area.
II. ENVIRONMEN'T'AL
The subject property has 7.16 acres of native vegetation and is required to preserve 1.07
acres. The preserve areas depicted on the CPUD Master Plan provide 3.10± acres to be
preserved.
Brynwood Center CPUD/ Page 15 of 16
PU DZ- PL2011 -4 06
Rev. 07/18/12
III. PUD MONITORING
One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring
until close -out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD
commitments until close -out of the PUD. At the time of this CPUD approval, the
Managing Entity is the First Coniniunity Bank of Southwest Florida. Should the
Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity,
then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for
legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will
be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and
the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off
tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an
acknowledgement of the commitments required by the CPUD by the new owner and the
new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity,
but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section.
When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the
monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments.
CP1I 1- CPS -01 I 1 1167
Biynwood Center CPUD/ Page 16 of 16
PUDZ -P L2011-406
Rev. 0711 S/ 12