Agenda 03/10/2015 Item #17C 3/10/2015 17.C.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a
hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 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
Agriculture (A) zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a Commercial Planned
Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district within the State Road 29 Commercial Overlay
Subdistrict (SR29COSD) to allow up to 162,000 square feet of commercial uses for a project to be
known as the SR 29 CPUD on property located at the northwest quadrant of SR-29 and Westclox
Street in Section 29, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of
24.99± acres; and by providing an effective date (PUDZ-PL20130001241) [(COMPANION TO
PL20130001345/CP-2013-8].
• OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staff's findings
and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding
this PUD rezone petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and
regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. This petition is a
companion petition to PL20130001345/CP-2013-8. That petition must be approved to allow
implementation of this PUD amendment.
CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is asking the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to
consider an application for a rezone from the Agriculture (A) zoning district with a Mobile
Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district
for a project known as SR29 CPUD to allow up to 162,000 square feet of commercial uses. For
details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project" in the staff report
prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC).
FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to
help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used
to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan
as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in
order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local
development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated
Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a
building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by
application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the
improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria
used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE):
The subject ±24.99 acre site is designated Urban, and comprised of +19.07 acres designated
Commercial District, Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict; +5.72 acres designated Mixed Use
Packet Page -1777-
3/10/2015 17.C.
District, Low Residential Subdistrict, and +.20 acres designated Mixed Use District, High
Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map of the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP)
Element of the Growth Management Plan.
The property owner submitted an IAMP amendment application (Petition CP-2013-8) that
proposed to re-designate the subject property to the S.R. 29 and Jefferson Avenue Commercial
Subdistrict. This amendment, if approved: (1) will allow up to 162,000 square feet of
commercial development of uses allowed in the C-1 (Commercial Professional and General
Office District), C-2 (Commercial Convenience District), C-3 (Commercial Intermediate
District), and C-4 (General Commercial District) zoning districts as described in the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC); (2) exempt development on the site from the
architectural and site design standards of the LDC Section 5.05.08, and the sign standards of
LDC Section 5.06.00; and, (3) provide that architectural and site design standards, and sign
standards be established through the rezoning of the subject site.
The Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment was transmitted to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity (DEO) in June 2013. The DEO rendered its Comment Letter indicating
"no comment"within the Agency's authorized scope of review.
For additional review comments regarding GMP FLUE consistency, please refer to the staff
report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission.
Comprehensive Planning Staff finds the proposed CPUD consistent with the Immokalee
Area Master Plan Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth
Management Plan amendment, Petition CP-20013-8, to expand the S.R. 29 and Jefferson
Avenue Commercial Subdistrict.
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 amendment 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).
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff
found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element
(CCME). The project site consists of 5.13 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 0.77 acres
(15%) of the existing native vegetation shall be preserved as this is a commercial development.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC heard this petition on January 15, 2015, and found that the criteria of Section 10.02.08.F
and 10.02.13.B.5 were met. By a vote of 6 to 0, (there is a vacant position on the CCPC) with
the motion made by Commissioner Chrzanowski and seconded by Commissioner Homiak, the
CCPC recommended forwarding this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
with a recommendation of approval subject to the following final changes to the PUD document:
1. Include staff recommendations except denial of sidewalk deviation #2, which is
recommended for approval;
Packet Page-1778-
3/10/2015 17.C.
2. Include comprehensive staff recommendation that this petition can be deemed consistent
with the GMP if petition CP-2013-8 is approved;
3. Revise sign exhibits to be legible and reproducible;
4. Remove Sherwin Williams as paint manufacturer on exhibits;
5. Revise the master plan interconnection to the north;
6. Create elevations G1 & G2 for clarity;
7. Delete PUD dual references where they occur;
8. Modify SIC 5735 to exclude adult entertainment uses;
9. Revise Exhibit F.1 transportation as discussed;
10. Revise Exhibit F.3.a. to remove the word "substantial"and insert the word "conceptual";
11. Revise Exhibit F to change developer or project,to owner;
12. Revise Exhibit G to add liquor sign.
These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft
ordinance.
No opposition to this petition has been received. The CCPC vote was unanimous; therefore the
petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from the Agriculture (A) zoning
district with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD)zoning district for a project to be known as the SR29 CPUD. The burden falls upon the
applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The
burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denying the
rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable.
This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed
criteria below.
Criteria for CPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for
approval or not.
1. Consider: 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.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements,
contract, 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? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed CPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Growth Management Plan.
Packet Page -1779-
•
3/10/2015 17.C.
4. Consider: 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.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of
assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and
private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to
accommodate expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with CPUD 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.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed CPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern?
11. Would the requested CPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change 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?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
Packet Page -1780-
3/10/2015 17.C.
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege
to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in
accordance with existing zoning? (a"core"question...)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: 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.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed CPUD rezone 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 [Code
ch.106, art.II], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the CPUD rezone request that
the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare?
The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the
written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive
Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the
BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by
the County Attorney's Office. This item has been reviewed and approved as to form and
legality. An affirmative vote of four is necessary for Board approval. (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approves the request subject to the
attached PUD Ordinance that includes both the staff's revised recommendation and the CCPC
recommendation.
Prepared by: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Planning & Zoning Department, Growth
Management Division
Attachments: 1) CCPC Staff Report 2) Application; 3) Legal Ad; and 4) Ordinance with
Exhibits
Packet Page -1781-•
3/10/2015 17.C.
2) Application Backup Information due to the size of the document it is accessible at:
http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaMarch 1 0 1 5/GrowthMgmt/application.pdf
3) Ordinance
Packet Page -1782-
3/10/2015 17.C.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 17.17.C.
Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 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 Agriculture (A) zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay(A-MHO)to a
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district within the State Road 29
Commercial Overlay Subdistrict (SR29COSD) to allow up to 162,000 square feet of commercial
uses for a project to be known as the SR 29 CPUD on property located at the northwest
quadrant of SR-29 and Westclox Street in Section 29, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier
County, Florida consisting of 24.99± acres; and by providing an effective date (PUDZ-
PL20130001241) [(COMPANION TO PL20130001345/CP-2013-8].
Meeting Date: 3/10/2015
Prepared By
Name: DeselemKay
Title:Planner, Principal,Zoning&Land Development Review
2/11/2015 10:43:07 AM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst,Community Development& Environmental Services
Date: 2/12/2015 10:12:52 AM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 2/12/2015 2:26:49 PM
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 2/18/2015 11:52:18 AM
Packet Page -1783-
3/10/2015 17.C.
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 2/23/2015 9:59:13 AM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 3/3/2015 7:27:55 AM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 3/3/2015 9:27:37 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 3/3/2015 10:13:02 AM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Division Director-Corp Fin&Mgmt Svc, Office of Management&Budget
Date: 3/3/2015 11:39:30 AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager,County Managers Office
Date: 3/3/2015 3:58:35 PM
Packet Page -1784-
3/10/2015 17.C.
AGENDA ITEM y-t.
Cot er County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION—PLANNING®ULATION
HEARING DATE: APRIL 29, 2014
SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD (COMPANION TO
PL20130001345/CP-2013-8)
PROPERTY OWNER&APPLICANT/AGENT:
Owner/Applicant: Agents:
Barron Collier Partnership,LLLP Wayne Arnold,AICP Richard D. Yovanovich,Esq.
do David Genson Q. Grady Minor&Assoc. P.A. Coleman,Yovanovich,& Koester, P.A.
2600 Golden Gate Pkwy,#200 3800 Via Del Rey Northern Trust Bank Bldg
Naples,FL 34105 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples,FL 34103
Contract Purchaser:
Wal-Mart Stores East,LP
2001 S.E. 10th Street
Bentonville,Arkansas 72716-5560
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an
application for a rezone from the Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Mobile Home Overlay
(A-MHO) to the Commercial Planned Unit Development District (CPUD) Zoning District to
allow development of a maximum of 162,000 square feet of commercial uses for a project to be
known as SR 29 CPUD. For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of
Project."
PUDZ-PL201.30001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 1 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page-1785-
3/10/2015 17.C.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property, consisting of 24.5± acres, is located at the northwest quadrant of SR-29 and
Westclox Street in Section 29, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida (See
location map on the following page)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Mobile
Home Overlay (A-MHO) to the Commercial Planned Unit Development District (CPUD) Zoning
District to allow development of a maximum of 162,000 square feet of commercial office, service
and retail uses. The proposed list of uses includes a variety of commercial uses to include, but not
be limited to, Amusement and Recreation Services: Groups 7911 and 7991, Garden Supply:
Group 5261, General Merchandise Stores: Group 5311-5399 and Hotels and Motels: Group
7011. The Traffic Impact Statement analyzed a free-standing discount superstore for
transportation impacts.
The Master Plan shows one access point onto State Road (SR) 29 and two access points onto
Westclox Street, along with areas depicting water management areas, adjacent rights-of-way, and
buffers. The majority of the site is labeled as "Development Area," but no building details are
shown. The petitioner is seeking approval of two deviations for this petition.
This petition has a companion petition seeking approval of a Growth Management Plan
Amendment (GMPA) to expand the Jefferson Street overlay onto this site, Petition
#PL20130001345/CP-2013-8. That amendment will need to be heard before or with this petition
in order for staff to make an appropriate recommendation on the PUD rezone petition.
This PUD petition, along with the companion GMPA, was heard by the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) on April 29, 2014 in a special session that was held in Immokalee. The
PUD was brought forward to hearings at the GMPA Transmittal Hearing stage rather than waiting
until the Adoption Hearings to allow the residents of Immokalee to become more familiar with the
project. Staff and the CCPC recommended that the PUD petition be continued until the GMPA
adoption hearing because all required information had not yet been provided. The proposed PUD
contains the missing information inclu4ing the details of the sign design and architectural
standards.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Lands controlled by the applicant,part of a 146.7±acre, and a 440 acre tract that surrounds
the subject site to the north, west and south across Westclox Street, with a zoning
designation of A(MHO)
East: SR 29, then various health services uses, with a zoning designation of PUD (Heritage
PUD)
South: Lands controlled by the applicant,part of a 146.7± acre tract that surrounds the subject site
to the north,west and south across Westclox Street,with a zoning designation of A(MHO)
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 2 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1786-
3/10/2015 17.C.
441 04,P7141°:;tolp,..1t4;4 1 1:4'1,r.-ev74 1.1:7 f,?::4 4
ii;:,4.,
O r �e 9'. 4 t64#-/,.
x,:
J
�a�� ...Vole., r.
5Z woa 31VJ$ �!� Q
s3
,
f !.' I r t'
0
Z
f%'
n: Z
I ttI
1 -
I 1.11.1 IRO
_r 1{ly\ \ w M
1 c
11 C7:1
N
J
LI-
MOS of lox O
CL
Z
0
I-
::: N M a ' M
N N Ql• N I-
tO �
W
cc-
a
r N ,W N M D m N
W
J
o ry -1 °'
W N N ? a ^ N Q
2
sz 'WS
I %07 r O M m_N N N
n 2
N I-
0 d
CC
R SI
m N ri P
M
O N
_
m *,J M
Ce
O
W O it
J Y a
7 m
acket Page -178 7 O
.- m D N a N
mM m J
0
3/10/2015 17.0. ',
014 1.r.MOO 11031,1011TINITOVIr,7111.111,106+04yonvo 1.1•1111 IMIOPII1•*O.*
V
b la 0 Z 0 au>
i
o=W°
wit a
y o
LL m
a wa m¢
C NY
▪ 4! P 0 Z
a w 76 W°
• 2 wa WO
Z Zo 1-
d 0 aW KO
W QN �n alad
U Q *rc a° �fO
_ 2 H
m O vQ Q.
O + w_
A z
C� po w¢t .. Ua•Q V i Ul:�+ W V g
ry m
• aW Hi0
cc A it r5
< t• U W K L.I.1 MI Q (A Q 2 _100
a• w = =5> Fst aia
H wma Z r cv ;
co - g a
g
gill _.
&x a
o al. ti 1.,.,.,
, g<., s J� w
n
°9 �a WW, Wig e = e
Al ONg Ng N7 a
N7
ti i1 E
�� S.R. 29 _�_ S 1 ?
I 1
-041„5 5, 1 1 E,,,E;1 i I I
a n 1 ,NN ccV 11 6 x a 11
gW 1 3
1 ,\ } 1 1111
I _ \ ,' I+ W 11 N
i
`\o, j 1 a� Ql
b 1 C o Ii P !r �LW
r- W !/ /
1 ti 1/ EVE.a
ag , 1 ii. "% € i8
\- // 7 1 /% 1
1 1 / WW
1 ( WATER MI14ACEMENT / . ,;
1 l //,
/ N?
I
V m J
s
- "
mg
Od D r /
Rig N g
Packet Page -1788-
3/10/2015 17.C.
West: Lands controlled by the applicant, part of a 146.7±acre tract that surrounds the subject site
to the north,west and south across Westclox Street,with a zoning designation of A(MHO)
tea-
of
v
� N
D 3 z &
' 3` e
� '1a
'f'1M
_, r
• . r
` " G,,
S
mar _7 t h` . .
Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate)
GROWTH MANAGEME NT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject ±24.99 acre site is designated Urban, and
comprised of +_19.07 acres designated Commercial District, Neighborhood Commercial
Subdistrict; +5.72 acres designated Mixed Use District, Low Residential Subdistrict, and +.20
acres designated Mixed Use District, High Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map of
the Immokalee Area Master Plan(IAMP)Element of the Growth Management Plan.
The property owner submitted an IAMP amendment application (Petition CP 2013-8) that
proposed to re-designate the subject property to the S.R. 29 and Jefferson Avenue Commercial
Subdistrict. This amendment, if approved: (1) will allow up to 152,000 square feet of commercial
development of uses allowed in the C-1 (Commercial Professional and General Office District), C-
2 (Commercial Convenience District), C-3 (Commercial Intermediate District), and C-4 (General
Commercial District) zoning districts as described in the Collier County Land Development Code
(LDC); (2) exempt development on the site from the architectural and site design standards of the
LDC Section 5.05.08, and the sign standards of LDC Section 5.06.00; and, (3) provide that
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 3 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1789-
3/10/2015 17.C.
architectural and site design standards, and sign standards be established through the rezoning of
the subject site.
The Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment was transmitted to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity (DEO) in June 2013. The DEO rendered its Comment Letter indicating
"no comment" within the Agency's authorized scope of review. The Adoption hearing for this
GMP amendment is scheduled to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on
March 10, 2015; the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) rezoning is scheduled for
this same hearing date.
In reviewing for compliance with Objective 7 and related Policies (shown in italics) of the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) regarding Smart Growth principles (interconnections, loop road,
sidewalks/trails,etc.), staff provides the following analysis in bold text.
FLUE 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,
CPUD Master Plan, depicts access onto S.R. 29 — an arterial road as identified in the
Transportation Element.]
FLUE 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 loop road is proposed due to the project type. The proposed CPUD Master Plan
identifies that the project will have a primary access on S.R. 29 and two additional accesses
on Westclox Road. Additionally, the project will have internal access via parking lot/drive
aisle that will permit vehicles to safely move throughout the site.]
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and/or their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments
regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also
addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Exhibit C, CPUD Master Plan, does not
depict interconnections with any abutting properties. The southern and eastern property
boundaries are adjacent to public roadways. The western property boundary abuts an
undeveloped, Agricultural (with Mobile Home Overlay) zoned tract and proposed water
management area for the subject site; no interconnection to the adjacent property is
proposed and staff does not believe it is practicable to provide an interconnection. The
northern boundary abuts an undeveloped, Agricultural (with Mobile Home Overlay) zoned
tract; an interconnection to the north appears to be both practical and feasible.Accordingly,
a "potential future interconnection" to the property to the north should be identified on the
Master Plan and included as a developer commitment.]
There is a goal and several policies in the TAMP relevant to provision of sidewalks, provided
below.
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 4 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1790-
3/10/2015 17.C.
IAMP
Policy 1.1.5: Land uses that meet the residential needs of the Immokalee community (e.g. day
care, health care needs, schools, grocery shopping, recreation) shall be designated within a
reasonable walking distance of those portions of the community which are or will likely become
heavily pedestrian in nature.
GOAL V: FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY A
NETWORK OF ROADS, SIDEWALKS, AND BIKEPATHS THAT ARE EFFICIENT AND
SAFE,AND ENHANCE AND PRESERVE IMMOKALEE'S SMALL TOWN CHARACTER
Objective 5.1: The County shall provide for the safe and convenient movement of pedestrians,
motorized and non-motorized vehicles.
Policy 5.1.1: The Traffic Circulation Map in the Transportation Element will graphically depict
Immokalee's future roadway network, and identify specific roadway improvements needed to
implement the Immokalee Area Master Plan's Future Land Use Map and will be updated as new
information is available. These improvements will be prioritized and placed into the Capital
Improvement Element after further transportation analysis is completed.
Policy 5.1.2: The Collier County 5-Year Pathways Plan, prepared by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization with the assistance of the Pathway Advisory Committee, shall give priority to
linking existing and future residential neighborhoods to each other, designated neighborhood
centers, commercial,employment and public service areas. This plan will reflect the unique needs
of the Immokalee community and also take into consideration the need for pedestrian walkways in
Immokalee.
Policy 5.1.3: Existing and future bikepaths for the Immokalee community shall be graphically
depicted within the Collier County 5-Year Pathways Plan.
Policy 5.1.4: The County Transportation and the Community Development and Environmental
Services'Divisions shall ensure that sidewalks and bikepaths constructed by or for the County are
provided concurrent with the impacts of development and meet the demands of the Immokalee
Community.
It is clear in the above policies and goal that the County is responsible for taking various actions to
plan for and provide pathways(sidewalks and bike paths) in the Immokalee community—which is
known to have a significant pedestrian population, including providing sidewalks to link
residential neighborhoods with commercial areas that provide goods and services, and
employment opportunities. The LDC requirement for new developments to provide sidewalks
(construct at the site, make payment in lieu of constructing at the site, or construct in another
location in lieu of constructing at the site) helps to fulfill the IAMP's intent regarding sidewalks
(as it does throughout the county).
In Exhibit E, Deviations, #2, the applicant is requesting a deviation from the requirement to
provide a sidewalk along SR 29. Justification provided is that "north of the subject site is not
populated and providing a sidewalk or pathway north of Westclox would not serve existing or
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 5 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1791-
3/10/2015 17.C.
future residents" and that a sidewalk will be provided along Westclox Street. While staff
acknowledges the property to the north, and those farther north, is presently undeveloped, that
may change over time. Further, residents in neighborhoods across SR 29 to the east and southeast
could benefit from a sidewalk along SR 29 now. Also, staff is aware that FDOT is or will be
conducting a study for widening SR 29 and that study would include sidewalks; however, it is
unknown when the widening—and sidewalk construction-may occur but is presumed to be many
years in the future. Staff also acknowledges the waste of resources that can occur if a sidewalk is
constructed only to be removed when road widening occurs later. For this reason, Comprehensive
Planning staff supports either of the two"in lieu of'options provided for in the LDC.
Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning Staff finds the proposed CPUD
consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element contingent upon: 1) Board
approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition CP-20013-8, to
expand the S.R. 29 and Jefferson Avenue Commercial Subdistrict; 2) revising Exhibit C,
CPUD Master Plan to show a "potential future interconnection" to the property to the north
and commit to this interconnection in Exhibit F, Developer Commitments; and, 3) removing
deviation#2.
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 amendment 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).
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found
this project to be consistent with the Conservation& Coastal Management Element(CCME). The
project site consists of 5.13 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 0.77 acres (15%) of the
existing native vegetation shall be preserved as this is a commercial development.
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 cannot
render that decision until the Transportation review can be completed. A fording of consistency
with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and
staff believes the petition is can be deemed consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE contingent
upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition
PL20130001345/CP-2013-8, to amend the Commercial Subdistrict — S.R. 29 and Jefferson
Avenue subdistrict. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent
with the CCME and 2 and 3 above. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found
consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP if the Board approves the
companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20130001345/CP-2013-8,to amend
the Commercial Subdistrict—S.R. 29 and Jefferson Avenue subdistrict.
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 6 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page-1792-
3/10/2015 17.C.
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.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to
as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F, 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. This project does not require Environmental
Advisory Council (EAC) review, as 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 petitioner has requested to relocate the required onsite preserve offsite in accordance with
LDC section 3.05.07.H.1.f; staff has found this property meets the criteria for off-site vegetation
retention. The off-site vegetation retention shall be based on the preserve requirement, which is
0.74 acres.
Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and
recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD
ordinance. Staff recommends approval subject to the following Transportation-related
stipulations:
-Denial of deviation number two as it is inconsistent with both FDOT requirements and the
County Land Development Code as it relates to the sidewalk requirement on SR-29.
As an informational note, FDOT has issued a preliminary statement regarding the signalization of
Westclox and SR-29, which is currently included in the ongoing PD&E study. They state: "It will
be a condition of the permit, if and when signal warrants are met within one full year after total
build out of the site, the developer of this project will be required to pay for the design and
installation of a traffic signal. All analyses necessary for determination of signal warrants shall be
the responsibility of the developer."
To supplement FDOT's stance, the County has required a proportionate share payment from this
development,which extends beyond the one-year-after-build out date imposed by FDOT.
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
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 7 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12,19/14
Packet Page -1793-
3/10/2015 17.C.
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, as there are no developed properties to the north or
west, or across Westclox Road to the south. Similarly the land across State Route 29 to the east is
undeveloped along the road frontage. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis
of this project.
The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document show the following:
STANDARDS COMMERCIAL
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet
Minimum Lot Depth N/A
Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet
Maximum Height
Zoned 35 feet
Actual 50 feet
Minimum Distance Between Structures One-half the sum of each building height but
not less than twenty feet (20 feet)
Minimum Floor Area 1000 SF
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES*
Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 15 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet
Maximum Height
Zoned 20 feet
Actual 25 feet
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 north,
west and south(across Westclox Street)by the lands owned by the petitioner. None of that land is
developed. Across SR 29, are office uses within the Heritage PUD (Ordinance 91-073) set well
away from the road frontage. Staff sees no compatibility issues with the proposed property
development regulations.
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 8 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
• Packet Page -1794-
3/10/2015 17.C.
However, staff is not certain that the substitutions as requested will be compatible and
complementary to the Immokalee area as discussed further below.
Substitution Discussion:
The proposed GMPA includes the following:
That portion of the Subdistrict located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Westclox
Street and S. R. 29 shall be rezoned in the form of a Planned Unit Development PUD). The PUD
shall include an appropriate list of commercial land uses designed to serve the needs of the
Immokalee community. Development within this portion of the Subdistrict shall not be required to
meet the specific architectural and site design standards for commercial development required for
PUDs, identified in Section 5.05.08, and the signage requirements of Section 5. 06 of the Collier
County Land Development Code; however, the PUD shall include specific building architectural
and signage standards for the commercial development. [underlining added for emphasis]
The applicant did not identify how the proposed architectural and signage proposals differ from
the requirements of the LDC. The PUD does not include any "specific standards." However,
zoning staff, in conjunction with other staff members,has reviewed the proposed substitutions and
offers the following comparison document for the proposed Architectural Standards as shown on
below.
Comparison of proposed architectural standards* for Walmart Immokalee to current LDC Architectural and Site
Design standards:
Walmart requirement more(>),less(<)restrictive or equal(_)
Walmart Proposal LDC 5.05.08
1.Building facades:all building facades,with the exception C.1: All facades of a building must be designed with
of the rear facade shall be of similar material and < consistent architectural style
architectural style
2.Primary facade standards:Primary facade is the facade C2:Primary facades:definition in LDC—facade that is in
housing main entrance and faces a main road"front"(only public view and faces a public or private street.In this case
one) two primary facades are required, Westcox Rd.on south and
SR 29 on east.
2.b.Primary facades on the ground floor must have features < C.2.b:Primary facades on the ground floor must have
along a minimum of 20%of their horiz.length features along a minimum of 50%of their horiz.length
3.a.i:Variation in massing projections/recesses 10'within C.4.a:For buildings>40,000 SF projections and recesses
max. 160'length for facades facing public way(two?) < 10'within max.length 150'for all facades
4.Building design treatments:Each front facade must have < C.5.b:Each(all)facade must have at least 4 treatments
at least 4 treatments
No requirement < C.5.c:Wall plane changes—no single wall plane exceeds
60%of each facade
No requirement C.5.c:Site design elements,two required—planters with
< area for seating min. 100 SF,specialty pavers,accent trees,
_ or site sculptures
5.Window standards:must not be false or applied = C.6:Window standards:must not be false or applied
None < C.7:Overhead doors screened on primary facades
6.Blank wall areas:blank walls must not exceed 160'horiz. < C.8.b:Blank wall areas must not exceed 20'horiz.or 10'
or 30'vert.except at rear facade vert.on primary facades
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CRUD Page 8 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page-1795-
3/10/2015 17.C.
7. b:Roof edge/parapet treatment—two roof or parapet C.10.b:Roof edge/parapet treatment—two roof or parapet
changes per facade- vert.change to be 16" < changes 10%of height or min.3',one on a primary facade,
one addt. for each 100' of facade
7.c.i:Parapets used to screen mech.equip.must be adequate < C.10.c.i:Parapet used to screen mech.equip.must be no
to screen e'Ili..from property line less than the height of equiv.
7.c.ii:When flat roof is screened with parapet or mansard,it C.10.c.ii:When a flat roof is screened with parapet or
must continue along all facades except rear facade < mansard at any facade it must extend along the remaining
facades
7.c.iii: Sloped roofs must be in proportion with height of C.l0.c.iii:Sloped roofs must be in proportion with height of
supporting wall,feature elements that create articulation = supporting wall,feature elements that create articulation
when higher than supporting walls,and have colors that when higher than supporting walls,and have colors that
complement colors of the facades complement colors of the facades
7.c.iv:Prohibited roof types—(mansard roofs requirements C.10.d.ii.b:Prohibited roof types—mansard roofs and
not listed as prohibited) < canopies except when they meet min. vert.distance of 8'
and roof angle between 25 and 70 degrees
8.b.i:Entryway/customer entrance:front entry must be set C.12.b:Entryway/customer entrance:must meet the
back from a drive or parking area a min.distance of 10' < following:an outdoor patio area.200 SF,with seating,
landscape planters or wing walls with landscape areas,
structural/vegetative shading,and front entry set back from
a drive or .arkin l area b a min.distance of 15'
9.b:Materials and colors—colors above level 8(chroma) C.13.b.i:Materials and colors—colors above level 8
saturation or below lightness level 3 limited to 20%of < (chroma)saturation or below lightness level 3 limited to
facade or visible roof area 10%of facade or visible roof area
9.c:Building materials limited to no more than 33%of C.13.c:Building materials limited to no more than 33%of
facade area—corrugated or metal panels and smooth < facade area—corrugated or metal panels and smooth
concrete block except at rear facade concrete block
*Based on Building Design Standards included in letter,dated October 17,2014,regarding PL20130001345/CP-2013-8
Note:Standards provided do not address section D.3 for specific requirements for mercantile(large retail structures)or section E
for service function areas such as shielding of trash enclosures and mech.equip.,and lighting.
There are significant differences in the architectural design elements proposed and what the LDC
requires. These differences will potentially result in a structure(s) that is less compatible with the
design standards of other structures in Immokalee that have been built in compliance with Collier
County codes. A lessening of the architectural standards for the proposed development has the
potential to visually impact the surrounding area, thereby, changing the character of the S.R. 29
corridor. Generally, other commercial buildings built to comply with the architectural code are
lower profile structures and smaller in mass. To mitigate for the proposed large-scale commercial
building, it is necessary to apply standards such as breaks in the building façades, glazing, etc. to
soften any potential impacts.
The applicant's agents made a presentation to the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA)on November 19, 2014. The results of that meeting are as follows:
Petition PUDZ-PL20130001241, SR29 CPUD & CP-2013-8, Immokalee Area Master
Plan
County Staff presented the Advisory Board with Enclosure 15 which included a public
notice and the renderings of the Walmart. After discussion board agreed to support the
development of the Walmart as proposed in the renderings provided by county staff
Action:Mr. Frank Nappo made a motion to approve the design of the Walmart, given
the budgetary constraints of the developer. Mr. Ski Olesky seconded the motion and
the motion was approved by unanimous vote. 11-0.
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 10 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1796-
3/10/2015 17.C.
The CRA Advisory Board members, representing Immokalee area residents, approved the
architectural design and sign standards for the proposed Wal-Mart development. Staff cautiously
offers no objection to the proposed architectural standards because Immokalee has different
standards based on interim deviation allowances. Also the CRA did support the proposed
architectural design and sign standards. Staff notes the subject property will be in the SR 29
Overlay(pending GMPA approval)and will be required to meet design standards of that Overlay.
Staff does offer the following comments for CCPC consideration on the architectural standards.
The exhibits include color codes that identify Sherwin Williams paint colors. This information
should not be shown on the PUD rezoning exhibits. The colors can be discontinued, thus
requiring an amendment to the zoning to replace the color with another. Furthermore, the colors
do not, at least initially, appear to be in violation of the LDC allowed colors so there is no need to
include them on the exhibits. The applicant's agents have been advised of this issue but have
declined to make any changes.
The other substitution being sought is for signs. The applicant desire to have additional signage
beyond what the LDC would allow.
To date, two other sign variances have been granted for Wal-Mart stores in Collier County. An
allowance for an additional 138± sign square footage for the Wal-Mart store on Immokalee Road
was approved in Resolution 07-37. In Resolution 11-113, an additional 100 square footage of
allowable signage was approved for the Wal-Mart at Collier Blvd. and Davis Blvd. The Land
Development Code would allow 250 square feet of signage on two frontages. The applicant
wishes to have the auto center sign on the south elevations, the drive thru signs on the north
frontage, and the majority of the signage on the east frontage.
Below is a chart showing the petitioner's proposed signage.
Signs for Walmart Building
SIGN TYPE QUANTITY APPLICANT PROPOSED
(square feet)
Walmart logo sign 1 298.00
Market 1 28.17
Home&Pharmacy 1 35.00
Outdoor Living 1 35.00
Auto Center(east elevation) 1 31.47
Auto Center(south elevation) 1 34.50
Pharmacy Drive Thru(north elevation) 2 35 each; 70 total
Pharmacy Drive Thru(east elevation) 1 35.00
TOTAL AGGREGATE (all frontages)
that can be divided into a maximum of 567.34
9 signs on three frontages
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 11 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1797-
3/10/2015 17.C.
All other signage, such as pole signs,would be in compliance with the LDC. Staff can support the
sign substitution request.
Deviation Discussion:
The petitioner is seeking approval of two deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The
deviations are listed in the PUD document in Exhibit D. Deviations are a normal derivative of the
PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in
LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part:
It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage
ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or
redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control.
PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum
lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum
standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the
public interest. . . .
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.08.E.1.B.ii (b), Site Design Standards, which
requires for corner lots, no more than 80 percent of the off-street parking for the entire commercial
building or project shall be located between any primary façade of the commercial building or
project and the abutting street, with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the required
parking, to permit 100% of the required parking to be permitted between the primary façade and
the road frontage.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
The deviation is justffied due to the proposed use of the site by a single large format
retail store. The building area along Westclox Street is proposed to be the auto service
center. Providing required customer parking in this area where no customer entrance
to the store is proposed would require the customers to park and walk to the front of
the building facing S.R. 29 to reach the primary customer entrance to the store. A
limited number of parking spaces designed for use by the patrons of the auto service
center will be provided.
Zoning 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 #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway
Requirements, which requires installation of a sidewalk or a payment in lieu of for sidewalk
construction in order to provide no sidewalk or payment in lieu of sidewalk construction for the
project's frontage on SR 29.
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 12 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1798-
3/10/2015 17.C.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
The area of Immokalee located north of the subject site is not populated and
providing a sidewalk or pathway north of Westclox would not serve existing or
future residents of the community. The applicant will be constructing a sidewalk on
Westclox and other pedestrian and transit improvements will be provided at the time
of construction.
Transportation Planning staff recommends DENIAL of this deviation because it is inconsistent
with both FDOT requirements and the County Land Development Code as it relates to the
sidewalk requirement on SR-29. Staff makes this recommendation fording 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.B.5.h, 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."
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.
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
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 13 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1799-
3/10/2015 17.C.
of infrastructure will be provided by the developer.
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. •
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 project will be compatible with the surrounding area.
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.
b. 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. 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 two 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 required for the
most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes Deviation #1 can be supported,
finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A3, 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.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated
that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 14 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1800-
3/10/2015 17.C.
literal application of such regulations." Staff however,does not support Deviation#2 finding
that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not 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.B.5.h,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." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff
report for a more extensive examination of the deviations.
Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F 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" (Staff's 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 the companion GMPA is adopted.
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,but staff does not support the deviations.
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 across SR 29 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 for the contract purchaser.
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 proposed rezoning is being requested in
concert with a request to amend the GMP.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 15 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1801-
3/10/2015 17.C.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change should not adversely impact living
conditions in the area because the adjacent lands are vacant.
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;
Lands to the north, west and south (Across Westclox Road) are undeveloped. The proposed
zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, if the proposed
amendment is adopted, 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
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 16 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1802-
3/10/2015 17.C.
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 already has been and could still 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, if the amendment is adopted. 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 could be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed;
however, it has not been shown that there are sites within the Immokalee area that meet the
size and location requirements, and the zoning and GMP requirements to allow this use.
The applicant's Commercial Needs Analysis prepared for the GMPA amendment indicate
that there are no other sites within the Immokalee area that meet the requirements. The
petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff
does not specifically 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.
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
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 17 of 19
'January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1803-
3/10/2015 17.C.
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 agents conducted a duly noticed NTM on Thursday, January 13, 2014 and another one on
November 19,2014. Please see copies of the transcript of those meetings in the application package.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on December 19, 2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County
Planning Commission forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval
subject to the following stipulations:
1. The Board must approve the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition
CP-20013-8,to expand the S.R. 29 and Jefferson Avenue Commercial Subdistrict; and
2. Exhibit C, CPUD Master Plan shall be revised to show a"potential future interconnection"
to the property to the north and commit to this interconnection in Exhibit F, Developer
Commitments; and,
3. Deny deviation#2.
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 18 of 19
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/19/14
Packet Page -1804-
3/10/2015 17.C.
PREPARED BY:
iA i I ) I 1
KAY D ELEM,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER ATE
DEPAR ENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
REVIEWED BY:
(L-/7-(
RAYM D BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE
DEPAR NT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
v;>--7,"/„--„_--'
MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
APPROVED BY:
/ ,/ /r.�"�./-'" L
' ASAL• GUI t ADM t `P:'-TOR DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DI ISI6N
Tentatively scheduled for the March 10,2015 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
PUDZ-PL20130001241: SR 29 CPUD Page 19 0119
January 15,2015 CCPC
Revised: 12/15/14
Packet Page -1805-
3/10/2015 17.C.
•
NAPLES DAILY NEWS (( Wednesday,February 18,2015 g 3D
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE +..PUBLIGNOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
'NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCES
rt Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing
on March 10,2015,at 9:00 A.M.,in the Board of County Commissioners chamber,Third Floor,Collier County
Government Center,3299 E.Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL:
The purpose of the hearing is to consider: '
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COWER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COWER COUNTY FLORIDA,
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT AND IMMOKALEEAREA
FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO ADD APPROXIMATELY 24.99 ACRES TO THE SR-29 AND JEFFERSON
AVENUE COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE URBAN-COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,TO ALLOW FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 162,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-1(COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL AND
GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT),C-2(COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE DISTRICT),C-3(COMMERCIAL
INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT), AND.C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) COMMERCIAL USES
AS DESCRIBED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE(LDC);TO'EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT ON THE
SUBJECT SITE FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS OF LDC SECTION 5.06.06,
AND THE SIGN STANDARDS OF LDC SECTION 5.06.00;AND TO PROVIDE THAT ARCHITECTURAL,
SITE DESIGN AND SIGN STANDARDS.BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE REZONING OF THE
SUBJECT SITE;PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF WESTCLOX STREET AND STATE ROAD 29 IN SECTION 29,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29
EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.•(PL20130001345/CP-2013-8]
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.2004-41,AS AMENDED,THE COWER 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 REALPROPERTY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL(A)ZONING DISTRICT WITH A MOBILE HOME
OVERLAY(A-MHO)TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(CPUD)ZONING DISTRICT
WITHIN THE STATE ROAD 29 COMMERCIAL OVERLAY SUBDISTRICT(SR29COSD)TO ALLOW UP TO
162,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE SR29 CPUD
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF SR-29 AND WESTCLOX STREET IN
SECTION 29,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST,COWER COUNTY FLORIDA CONSISTING OF
24.99s ACRES;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(PUDZ-PL20130001241)
E
•
111.111• �s Iii
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCES will be made
available for inspection at the Planning&Zoning Department, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N.
Horseshoe Dr.,Naples,FL.,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday.Furthermore
the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,fourth floor,suite 401,
Collier County Government Center, East Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions
pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Planning &Zoning'Department, Comprehensive
Planning Section.Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to March 10,2015 will be
read and considered at the public hearing.
if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,
and for such purpose he 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.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,
you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County ;
Facilities Management Department,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite#101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,
(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are -
avalable in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA
TIM NANCE,CHAIRMAN.
• DWIGHT E.'BROCK,CLERK
By: Teresa Cannon ' Deputy Clerk(SEAL)
• No.231123958 February 18.2015
• Packet Page -1806---
3/10/2015 17.C.
ORDINANCE NO. 15-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
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 A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (A-MHO)TO
A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING
DISTRICT WITHIN THE STATE ROAD 29 COMMERCIAL OVERLAY
SUBDISTRICT (SR29COSD) TO ALLOW UP TO 162,000 SQUARE •
FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
SR29 CPUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
QUADRANT OF SR-29 AND WESTCLOX STREET IN SECTION 29,
TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 24.99± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUDZ-PL20130001241)
WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Barron Collier
Partnership, LLLP, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning
classification of the herein described property; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within Wellfield Risk Management Special
Treatment Overlay Zone W-4, and this Overlay is not affected by this Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification.
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 29,
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from an Agriculture (A)
zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) within the State Road 29 Commercial Overlay Subdistrict (SR29COSD)
for a 24.99± acre parcel to be known as SR29 CPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through H
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps,
[13-CPS-01238/1157703/1] 116 Page 1 of2
SR29 CPUD-PUDZ-PL20130001241
Rev. 3/2/15
Packet Page -1807-
3/10/2015 17.C.
as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development
Code,is/are hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO: Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective after filing with the Department of State and on
the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 2015- becomes
effective.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2015.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: By:
Deputy Clerk TIM NANCE, Chairman
Approved as to form and legality:
i
Heidi Ashton-Cicko ,2"
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses
Exhibit B—Development Standards
Exhibit C—Master Plan
Exhibit D—Legal Description
Exhibit E—Exemptions
Exhibit F—List of Developer Commitments
Exhibit G—Elevation Exhibit for Signage and Architectural
Exhibit G-1 —Enlargement of Exhibit G
Exhibit G-2—Enlargement of Exhibit G
Exhibit H—Building Design Standards
[13-CPS-01238/1157703/1] 116 Page 2 oft
SR29 CPUD-PUDZ-PL20130001241
Rev.3/2/15
Packet Page -1808-
3/10/2015 17.C.
EXHIBIT A
FOR
SR29 CPUD
Regulations for development of the SR29 CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this
CPUD Document and applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth
Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of each development order to which
said regulations relate. Where this CPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards,
then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply.
PERMITTED USES:
A maximum of 162,000 square feet of commercial gross floor area shall be permitted within
the CPUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land
used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Amusement and recreation services: Groups 7911 and 7991.
2. Apparel and accessory stores:Groups 5611-5699.
3. Attorney offices and legal services: Group 8111.
4. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations: Groups 5511-5571
5. Automotive rental, services and carwash: Groups 7514, 7515, 7542 (only for
automobiles and trucks/buses of one ton capacity or less).
6. Bowling center: Group 7933
7. Building materials:Groups 5231
8. Business services: Groups 7311, 7313, 7322 -7338, 7361, 7371-7384.
9. Depository institutions and non-depository credit institutions: Groups 6021-
6163
10. Eating places: Group 5812.
11. Food stores: Groups 5411—5499.
12. Garden supply Group: 5261
13. General merchandise stores: Groups 5311 - 5399 (including warehouse clubs
and discount retail superstores, which may include minor auto repair services
and outdoor garden centers).
•
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Page 1 of 15 (rev8)03/02/2015
•
Packet Page -1809-
3/10/2015 17.C.
14. Hardware stores: Group 5251.
15. Health services: Groups 8011- 8099.
16. Home furniture, furnishings and equipment stores: Groups 5712 - 5735,
excluding adult oriented sales and rental and 5736.
17. Hotels and motels: Group 7011.
18. Insurance agencies, brokers and carriers:Groups 6311-6399 and 6411.
19. Management services: Groups 8711- 8748.
20. Membership organizations:Groups 8611, 8621, 8641 and 8661.
21. Miscellaneous repair services: Groups 7622-7631.
22. Miscellaneous retail services: Groups 5912, 5921, 5949, 5983 and 5992 - 5999
(except monument and tombstone sales).
23. Movie picture theaters: Group 7832.
24. Personal services: Group 7212 (dry-cleaning and laundry pickup stations only),
7215, 7219- 7291,and 7299 (except crematory).
25. Public administration: Groups 9111-9661.
26. Real estate agents and managers: Groups 6512-6514, 6519, 6531-6552.
27. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges and services: Groups 6211-
6289.
28. Social services: Groups 8322, 8351 and 8399.
29. Travel agencies: Group 4724.
30. Veterinarian's office: Group 0742 (for household pets only and without
overnight boarding or outdoor kennels).
31. Videotape rental: Group 7841, excluding adult oriented sales and rental.
32. Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in nature
with the foregoing uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")
or the Hearing Examiner.
B. Accessory Uses/Structures:
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Pape 7 Of 1 S (rev8)03/02/2015
Packet Page -1810-
3/10/2015 17.C.
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal
uses and structures, including, but not limited to:
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted
principal uses.
2. Drinking places (Group 5813),only in conjunction with eating places.
3. Caretaker's residence.
4. Sidewalk sales: outdoor seasonal sales shall be permitted (except roadside
sales).
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Exhibits B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the MPUD Residential
Subdistrict. 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.
Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth in Exhibit B, shall be understood to be in
relation to individual parcels or lot boundary lines. Condominium and/or residential dwelling
unit boundary lines shall not be utilized for determining development standards.
1
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Paee 1 of 15 (rev8)03/02/2015
Packet Page -1811-
3/10/2015 17.C.
EXHIBIT B
FOR
SR29 CPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STANDARDS COMMERCIAL
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet
Minimum Lot Depth N/A
Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet
Maximum Height
Zoned 35 feet
Actual 50 feet
Minimum Distance Between Structures One-half the sum of each building height but not
less than twenty feet(20 feet)
Minimum Floor Area 1000 SF
;Yn ne rtz v
ACCESSORYSTRU MIRES*
Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 15 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet
Maximum Height
Zoned 20 feet
Actual 25 feet
*Except project signage which shall be in compliance with signage provisions of the LDC.
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Page 4 of 15 (rev8)03/02/2015
Packet Page-1812-
3/10/2015 17.0
F ,r1
oe
“,.
IlL' Il
..........-Z—.MEM r: es.
...
LL 0 '42 SO
111, ul
Du. ma ,-,
<
L. tn a
.- =<0- ...,
w w co my .-^
<
rc t7 —a• ... 0
< sil co 04r CC
= > 22 Zo..'-'
0 L1.1 <1.1. < W
W > 0 M E-
8 < D *- ■-
ni Z 1-0 20
co tn ,rt- -co 2
w Z X 0
< = OFF
C) E
ct
Le.
M <0 w= C4WL) •
O < ee••Ict <0 020 2
4 M 72-,0 D 1-w 0
0-0 ww= Z_
z
N• LL W ese Z< (.)
-LL CE LL LL'-' LL 7-
< c.) .
F-
0
tr .H....
m
w
< < 0 00
< c•-i, Z >5.._ w. --w —lot, ow
w < —
CT1 2 M E
rt, tt
>.cr W . .E -..." A
"iitIr = .,•-7•7 •=2 1 -
. ,
. ,..
ti152.(t, Cii,C, 0 0 0
F.E !.41T4.1
Ow
gil
ftioc:«1 Vk'
T6 2,T,
t-
2't Ti i E
(.2h cee,
0?›.
SI .<00
.tent 0.6
0. 69E 6.9
0 D 0
Lgu*
ND E.
ND w
Z u.I
i.)17 Z w
i7
ow t ,-
E t
ND N D I E.
x
• '''S'
L. ;-• *
0 :•.,E
II SR 29 *2
'c• = E.
4t -E
,---
I 2 ii 2
( Ilig c5
6-•-' :-_..- 1
• -....qt. 1 H :'-'': ' • .
I Pz. ak
-.=.l%
V° r.-,,
i •
\\ -
FAg - '--- * •! - .: w' !
,.. .:„.1 i —...,, \ .1 .!
; , 1_2
clilz.
,,,, 1
1 1 ,
! f , .7....,,,,I,E•
I 9E',
I f I 1
1 . -
,,...
...
I 1-,---
—
_ ,
i''''E , 1 1-''....i.--,,
0 :_,-,1 t
'XZ' I , i z•,, 1 , ,..1.a,
t, 'i /
/ .h
ND -
I _
\ ..."
'-."-
I -...".'."
4 tV?
'A otn
VE
,.....
a
...... -§ .1 ....$
z it-
* , :
a. ..
t. t
22 oV
ND
Packet Page -1813-
,, ,
3/10/2015 17.C.
EXHIBIT D
FOR
SR29 CPUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK
2493, PAGE 2779, LYING IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 29 AS SHOWN ON THE WESTCLOX
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP, COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER 69022; THENCE RUN NORTH
00°53'40" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 449.75 FEET TO A
POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST SECTION LINE, SOUTH 89°01'15" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
100.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX STREET
AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH 15TH STREET (STATE ROAD 29), SAID POINT
BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE SOUTH 89°16'31" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX
STREET,A DISTANCE OF 122.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 612.87 FEET, ALONG THE ARC
OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1712.95 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF
20°29'59", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 80°28'28" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 609.61 FEET) TO A
POINT; THENCE NORTH 70°13'29" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 298.50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE
LEAVING SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 00°38'40" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 883.25
FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89°23'16" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 702.01 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE NORTH 00°38'44" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 192.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°21'16 EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 300.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID NORTH
15TH STREET, (STATE ROAD 29); THENCE SOUTH 00°38'24" EAST ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1286.64 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 24.99 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Page 6 of 15 (revg)03/02/2015
Packet Page -1814-
3/10/2015 17.C.
EXHIBIT E
FOR
SR29 CPUD
SUBSTITUTIONS AND DEVIATIONS
SUBSTITUTIONS:
In accordance with the Commercial Subdistrict —SR 29 and Jefferson Avenue of the Immokalee
Area Master Plan of the Growth Management Plan, approved by Ordinance No. , this PUD shall
not be required to meet the specific architectural and site design standards in Sections 5.05.08
and 5.05.06 of the LDC.
Exhibits G, G-1, G-2 and H contain the specific architectural and site design standards for
commercial development of this PUD.
DEVIATIONS:
1. From LDC Section 5.05.08.E.1.B.ii (b),Site Design Standards, which requires for corner lots,
no more than 80 percent of the off-street parking for the entire commercial building or
project shall be located between any primary façade of the commercial building or project
and the abutting street, with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the
required parking, to permit 100% of the required parking to be permitted between the
primary façade and the road frontage.
2. From LDC Section 6.06.02, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which
requires installation of a sidewalk or a payment in lieu of for sidewalk construction in
order to provide no sidewalk or payment in lieu of sidewalk construction for the project's
frontage on SR 29 subject to the following;
The owner at any time upon written request of FDOT shall provide up to 10' (ten)feet of
additional road right-of-way along the SR-29 frontage. The additional road right-of-way
shall be conveyed at no cost to the State or Collier County. Building setbacks and
landscape buffers along S.R. 29 shall be reduced by the width of the right-of-way
conveyed:to the County or State per LDC Section 9.03.07 effective at time of approval of
this PUD. This requirement terminates upon completion of FDOT's 90% construction
plans for State Road 29 improvements, which is currently in the project development and
environment(PD&E)study stage.
•
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Pate 7 of 15 (rev8)03/02/2015
Packet Page -1815-
3/10/2015 17.C.
EXHIBIT F
FOR
SR29 CPUD
LIST OF DEVELOPER/OWNER COMMITMENTS
1. TRANSPORTATION
a. The owner shall be responsible for the proportional share of the cost of a traffic signal
system, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking at the intersection of
Westclox/S.R. 29 if warranted. Upon the completion of the installation, inspection,
burn-in period, and final approval/acceptance of said traffic signal it shall be turned over
(for ownership)to Collier County or FDOT.
b. The owner(or Successor) shall perform a signal warrant study at the project's entrance
on S.R. 29, per the guidelines set forth by the MUTCD and MUTS.The first analysis must
be completed within 90 days after the CO is issued for the anchor tenant and the
analysis must be based upon current traffic counts and estimated traffic for vacant
ancillary uses. Thereafter, an annual study is due each year until either signal warrants
are satisfied or until there are two (2) consecutive years after the CO is issued in which
the signal is deemed unnecessary. Should it be determined that a traffic signal is
warranted, and if the installation of the signal is approved by FDOT and CDOT, then
the Developer will be responsible for all costs to install the traffic signal. Upon
completion, inspection, burn-in period, and final approval/acceptance, the signal shall
be turned over(for ownership)to Collier County.
c. At the time of SDP, the owner will construct all pedestrian facilities at the intersection
of S.R. 29 & Westclox/New Market that accommodate pedestrian generated trips
associated with the project (excluding Pedestrian Signalized System). All other
pedestrian features, constructed at the intersection will be constructed at the time a
signal is installed. The project will pay its proportionate share towards the cost of the
signal and pedestrian features at that time.
d. The owner shall promote transit service through the construction of bus bays to support
2 buses at a time. A bus bay is defined as a recessed curbed area separated from the
moving lane of traffic. The location of the bus bays shall be identified during site plan
review. The facilities to be constructed at the bus bays shall be agreed to during site
plan review and may include a bench, garbage can, bike rack, and covered area and
must be constructed prior to the certificate of occupancy for the first building.
e. A signal warrant study will be required by owner upon submittal of the SDP or SDPA
application.
f. If warranted during SDP/SDPA review, and if allowed by FDOT, the traffic signal shall be
installed by owner within 6(six) months of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
A bond shall be posted by owner at the time of Certificate of Occupancy to cover the full
cost of the signal and installation.
g. If warranted during the SDP/SDPA review, or if not yet allowed by FDOT, then a bond
shall be required prior to issuance of the first building permit to cover the full cost of the
signal and installation.
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Page R of 15 (tev8)03/02/2015
Packet Page -1816-
•
3/10/2015 17.C.
h. If the signal is not warranted within 3 (three) years of first Certificate of Occupancy or
not approved by FDOT within 3 (three) years of first Certificate of Occupancy, the bond
shall be released by Collier County.
i. The owner at any time upon written request of FDOT shall provide up to 10' (ten) feet of
additional road right-of-way along the SR-29 frontage. The additional road right-of-way
shall be conveyed at no cost to the State or Collier County. Building setbacks and
landscape buffers along S.R.29 shall be reduced by the'width of the right-of-way conveyed
to the County or State per LDC Section 9.03.07 effective at time of approval of this PUD.
This requirement terminates upon completion of FDOT's 90%construction plans for State
Road 29 improvements, which is currently in the project development and environment
(PD&E)study stage.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL
No native vegetation preserve shall be provided on-site. The owner shall meet native
vegetation preservation requirements by providing for off-site vegetation retention
pursuant to LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f. The off-site vegetation retention shall be a minimum
of 1.23±acres (4.91±acres of native vegetation x 0.25 = 1.23±acres).
3. PLANNING
a. Project architecture and signage shall be in compliance with the conceptual Building
Elevation Exhibits G, G1, G2 and H.
b. This PUD shall be included in the State Road 29 Commercial Overlay Subdistrict in LDC
Section 2.03.07.G.1 and subject to the Overlay standards including the design standards
in LDC Section 4.02.27.C.
4. 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 PUD approval, the Managing
Entity is Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP, 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite 200, Naples, FL
34105. 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 PUD 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.
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Page 9 of 15
(rev8)03/02/2015
• Packet Page -1817-
EXHIBIT G 3/10/2015 17.C.
FOR I z
SR29 CPUD c
ELEVATION EXHIBIT FOR SIGNAGE AND ARCHITECTURAL o
g s
.`
e a ai l 41 , O o F n . 71 'NI , r' " s h z., a I i I 1 (
lJ�
a � , , I to z z
C7
,,,P �o i I c 3 4
'V''`' I I , I ,g i.,o CCo. n
v o i d 0 o o o l o o a T 4`
c 1 1 111 tiJ _,,, m V
x Q(N tV,NININI^1,_,- W< a
9 a -4 T d:4 e-f`,1 ` `
■ z LL _
a E E;r > a _. S
y ' '. I y ,JLV4W!,'Ci .S,P Y Y A .%''.., LL3, 0.'1 U
Q3- r «{-1,ziO.¢ aa E O
a "' m Rr, I .,
Z a 0 2a-r
•; n .1
''1
1 : ; y?►" a y
q s
a
,tic
O � ..
, -- I ry o a a
f
c a u
ny
a 8
.=
5 C a, 0. . C O d Ml A`` - b C N W a R OC Y �.,.4 f C O
R., C .0.-.- l... C A a a a a y' f o s w E
d lJ a f a v A s q
t, T a a -
M'm C A N
c Y,. 2 N 2
' tie- __. LC.� E
6 C VD I,gy W pp. .c a '., p
. e fi 1 a C y
E 2 m V1
.. v o Z a
N c M
�,ry c M
o M+,o,. v, a
Q;eO
-J E
. C F fY -a . LL Z
163_
: N Y
�_ w p I.
75 g
a
O�:�a� v o 3 E
e d - Val "T ` .0 = '' m
-n N V SL �L 2
f a�
C 1 a te �r a y pY rt N �L3V
°: + ''o
.161 i
- _ ,1
Packet Page 4818-
EXHIBIT G-1 2 3/10/2015 17.C.
a FOR
$ z o SR29 CPUD °(7 R
F °t° ENLARGEMENT OF EXHIBIT G j "`'
n
A o- -•
' y ti
C d
a w
r
Ulin u a `
L C
a °o V
P. '_
q N
a
`e
g 4 N L
C1'
N w 2
vjt
I
a
a
c
a m
u =
I va
a
IL..E.
I
c
N a
V '0
E
2. µ
+ V =
in t
o Z
in
,,;"v %.0 o 4
L3
WI v -
";s'q - a
E 3
V
c
a t
- o
ry
A Psi
A
3
I N N , p
y
o I∎ I
( g
A y
W
ea • 1
R E -- x
R
Packet Page -1819-
S —Jr-
i
EXHIBIT G2 3/10/2015 17.C.
FOR ' H!
$
S 2 UD r
ENLARGEMENT OFEXHIBIT G ]|
§ }
0 CU Z
\\ = {
o. &§\b k 8! � §•
' ° ƒ\ f
|ii-, ,t
7 /
a cv .8 _ /
S.a. k , !
{ 2
I . 2.
. § _ ,
,
. \
a a (
a, k
§ $
` > !
ts/ . \ {
1 g
{ \ 2 \
k § - .. . a
E U } rt
2 «( ' 2 ?f . |
) k 8 . } I
. . . } ;
-ci |
E. % /
k , -
\\ \ ; . \
$ % ° 1 /
a 7 \ � § , $ t
\ - . i
v. 2 !
} \ |
f - !
1 e |
\. \ f \ )\ « / g
0 ) . \
. E
2 } ii
2 §
\§ 5 :z
&& ` N
E )
E& _ |rc�
%r
of
1
F{ q
ro _. $
\ ` a
Packet Page -1820-
3/10/2015 17.C.
EXHIBIT H
FOR
SR29 CPUD
BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Building Design Standards:
1. Building facades. All building facades of a building with the exception of the rear shall be of
similar material and architectural style.
2. Primary façade standards(For purposes of this PUD,the primary façade of the building is the
facade which houses the main public entries and faces a main road. In layman's terms, only the
"front"side of the building.)
a. Building Entrance—Buildings located along a public or private street must be designed
with the main entrance(s) clearly defined with convenient access from both parking and
the street.
b. Ground floor: Primary facades on the ground floor must have features along a minimum
of 20%of their horizontal length. These features include but are not limited to:
arcades,display windows,entry areas or other similar design elements.
3. Variation in massing. A single large dominant building mass must be avoided. Changes in mass
must be related to entrances,the integral structure and the organization of interior spaces and
activities and not merely for cosmetic effect. False fronts or parapets create insubstantial
appearance and are discouraged.
a. Projections and recesses.
i. A maximum length or uninterrupted curve for facades facing a public street, at
any point, must be 160 linear feet. Projections and recesses must have a
minimum depth of ten feet within the 160 foot limitation. Facades not facing a
public way and/or the rear of the building are exempt from this requirement.
4. Building Design Treatments. Each primary building façade must have at least four of the
following building design treatments:
a. Canopies, porticos or porte-cocheres integrated with the building's massing and style.
b. Overhangs, minimum of three feet.
c. Collonnades, arcades, a minimum of eight feet in clear width.
d. Sculptured artwork
e. Cornice, minimum of 15" high with 6" projection.
f. Peaked or curved roof forms.
g. Arches or flat topped collonades with a minimum of 8" recess depth.
h. Display windows
i. Ornamental and structural architectural details,other than cornices,which are
integrated into the building structure and overall design.
j. Clock or bell tower or other such roof treatment (dormers, belvederes and cupolas)
k. Projected and covered entry with a minimum dimension of eight feet and the minimum
area of 100 square feet.
I. On the primary(front)façade, an emphasized building base,a minimum of three feet
high.
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Packet Page -1821- (rev8).03/02/2015
3/10/2015 17.C.
m. Additional roof articulation above the minimum standards.
n. Curved walls
o. Columns
p. Pilasters
q. Metal or tile roof material
r. Expressed or exposed structural elements
s. Additional glazing at a minimum of 15%beyond code minimum requirement.
t. Solar shading devices
u. Translucent glazing at a minimum of 15% beyond the minimum glazing requirement
v. Glass block at a minimum of 15%beyond the code minimum glazing requirement.
5. Window standards. Windows must not be false or applied. Spandrel panels in curtain wall
assembly are allowed but may not be included in the minimum glazing required.
6. Blank wall areas. Blank opaque walls must not exceed 160 feet in horizontal or 30 feet in the
vertical direction except at rear façade.
7. Roof treatments
a. Purpose and intent. Variations in roof lines are used to add interest and reduce massing
of large buildings. Roof height and features must be in scale with the building's mass
and shall compliment the character of surrounding buildings and neighborhoods.
Roofing materials must be constructed of durable high quality material in order to
enhance the appearance and attractiveness of the community. The following standards
identify appropriate roof treatments and features.
b. Roof edge and parapet treatment
i. A minimum of two roof edge or parapet line changes per façade are required.
Each vertical change shall be a minimum of 16".
c. Roof Design Standards
i. When parapets are used,the average height of such parapets must not exceed
15 percent of the height of the supporting wall with exception of the parapets
used to screen mechanical equipment. Parapets used to screen mechanical
equipment must be adequate to screen the equipment from the property line.
ii. When a flat roof is screened with a parapet or mansard façade, it must continue
along all facades with the exception of the rear façade.
iii. When sloped roofs are used,the massing and height must be in proportion with
the height of it's supporting walls. Sloped roofs must meet the following
requirements:
1. Sloped roofs that are higher than its supporting walls must feature
elements that create articulation and reduce the massing of the roof.
This includes clearstory windows,cupolas, dormers,vertical changes or
additional complementary colors to the color of the roof.
2. The colors of a sloped roof must complement the colors of the facades.
iv. Prohibited roof types and materials:
1. Asphalt shingles except laminated 320-pound 30 year architectural
grade or better
2. Awnings used as a mansard or canopy roof
8. Entryway/customer entrance treatment:
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Packet Page -1822- (rev8)03/02/2015
3/10/2015 17.C.
a. Purpose and intent. Entryway design elements are intended to give protection from the
sun and adverse weather conditions. These elements must be integrated into a
comprehensive design style for the project.
b. Single tenant buildings and developments. Single tenant buildings shall have clearly
defined, highly visible customer entrances. The customer entrance shall meet the
following standards.
i. Front entry must be set back from a drive or parking area a minimum distance
of ten feet.
9. Materials and colors
a. Purpose and intent. Exterior building colors and materials contribute significantly to the
visual impact of buildings on the community.The colors and materials must be well
designed and integrated into a comprehensive design style for the project.
b. Exterior building colors
i. The use of color materials or finish paint above level 8 saturation (chroma) or
below lightness level 3 on the Collier County Architectural Color Charts is
limited to no more than 20 percent of a façade or visible roof area.
ii. The use of naturally occurring materials are permissible such as marble granite
and slate and the following man made materials : silver unpainted metal roofs.
iii. The use of fluorescent colors is prohibited.
c. Exterior building materials (excluding roofs). The following building finish materials are
limited to no more than 33%of the façade area:
i. Corrugated or metal panels and
ii. Smooth concrete block, except at rear façade.
d. Neon tubing: The use of neon or neon type tubing is prohibited on the exterior and
roof of a building.
SR29 CPUD Exhibits Packet Page -1823- (rev8)03/02/2015