Agenda 05/12/2015 Item #17A Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
May 12,2015
Add On Item 11A: Recommendation that the Board declares a public emergency with respect to bridge
repairs needed for bridge number 030137 on CR-846 indentified by the recent Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) inspection, approve installation of vehicle restriction signs,waives the Purchasing
Ordinance in the best interest of the County and authorize staff to proceed with a design-build temporary
bridge repair with a vendor that can complete the work on the most expedited schedule. (Staff's request)
Move Item 17A to Item 9E: 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. A recommendation to consider an
Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, which includes 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 the Estates (E) zoning
district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to
be known as the Avalon of Naples RPUD to allow a maximum of 160 multi-
family residential dwelling units, or 82 single-family residential dwelling units.
The subject property, consisting of 22.83± acres, is located in the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and County Barn
Road in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, and by providing an effective date [PUDZ-PL20140001179].
(Commissioner Henning's request)
Move Item 17B to Item 9F: This item has been continued from the April 14,2015 BCC meeting, then
again from the April 28,2015 BCC meeting. 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 Petition VAC-PL20140000235,to vacate the 2.35-foot wide
conservation easement as recorded in Official Record Book 4251,Pages 1007 through 1018,of the
public records of Collier County,Florida,being a part of Tract M-1,Stella Maris,and approve an
Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and General Release,dated June 26,2007,as recorded in
Official Record Book 4251,Pages 1019 through 1024. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Note:
Item 16E6: Please note that the new contract for Fleet parts is scheduled for Board action on the May
26,2015 BCC agenda.
Time Certain Items:
Item 9A to be heard at 9:30 a.m., immediately followed by Companion Item 9B
Item 9E to be heard immediately following Item 9B
C/15/2111,2:112 PM
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. A recommendation to consider an
Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which includes 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 the Estates (E) zoning
district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to be known as the
Avalon of Naples RPUD to allow a maximum of 160 multi-family residential dwelling units, or 82
single-family residential dwelling units. The subject property, consisting of 22.83± acres, is located
in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and County Barn Road in
Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and by providing an
effective date [PUDZ-PL20140001179].
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 Planned
Unit Development 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.
CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) consider a rezone of the subject site from the Estates (E) zoning district to the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the
Avalon of Naples. The subject 22.83± acre site is located at the south east quadrant of the
intersection of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road.
In the petitioner’s cover letter of September 5, 2014, the petitioner explains the project as
follows: “The Avalon of Naples RPUD will be located on 22.83 acres at the intersection of
County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard. The property is currently vacant and zoned Estates.
The Applicant is requesting a rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development to allow a
maximum of 160 single and/or multi-family units, and common ancillary uses. Residential
structures will be limited to two stories and 35 feet in height. Avalon of Naples RPUD will
provide a recreational area, common open space, preserve, a unified architectural theme,
restricted access for its residents and guests, and buffering from adjacent properties. The
proposed project will be compatible with surrounding uses and will be consistent with the LDC
and compliant with the Growth Management Plan.” The project will have one access located on
Davis Boulevard and a secondary exit-only access onto County Barn Road. Seven deviations are
being sought from various provisions of the Land Development Code which are discussed in
depth in Attachment 1 staff report.
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
Packet Page -1295-
5/12/2015 17.A.
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 property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District – Urban Residential
Subdistrict, and within a Residential Density Band on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict allows residential
uses (variety of unit types), recreation and open space uses, and essential services.
A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall
finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the
FLUE. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element and
Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the Conservation
and Coastal Management Element (CCME). Therefore, staff recommends that the petition be
found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC heard this petition on April 16, 2015. By a unanimous vote (5 to 0) with a motion made
by Commissioner Ebert and seconded by Commissioner Doyle, the CCPC recommended
forwarding this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation
of approval subject to the following limitations:
1. Revise Exhibit B to include minimum 100’ distance from travel lane on Davis
Boulevard for the recreation structures consistent with other listed uses.
2. Remove the development unit density note(s) on the Master Plan, Exhibit C.
3. Revise Deviation 3 to add that the deviation is valid until 90 percent of the dwelling
units are sold. Once 90 percent of the dwelling units are sold the temporary sign
allowance reverts to LDC minimum code standards.
These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD Document that is included in the draft
Ordinance.
No correspondence in opposition to this petition has been submitted for the current proposal; no
one spoke at the CCPC hearing voicing opposition to the project and the CCPC vote was
unanimous. Therefore, this petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS : This is a site specific rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning
District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be
known as the Avalon of Naples RPUD. 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
Packet Page -1296-
5/12/2015 17.A.
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 RPUD 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 RPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Growth Management Plan.
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 RPUD 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 RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern?
Packet Page -1297-
5/12/2015 17.A.
11. Would the requested RPUD 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?
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 RPUD 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.
Packet Page -1298-
5/12/2015 17.A.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD 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 approved as to form and legality, and requires
an affirmative vote of four for Board approval. (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC including the
conditions noted in the approval motion and further recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approves the request subject to the attached Resolution.
Prepared by: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager, Zoning Division, Growth Management
Department.
Attachments: 1) Staff Report
2) Ordinance
3) Legal Ad
4) Back-up information; Due to the size of this document, a web link has been
provided for viewing at:
http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaMay1215/GrowthMgmt/Avalon_of_Naples .pdf
Packet Page -1299-
5/12/2015 17.A.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 17.17.A.
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. A
recommendation to consider an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes 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 the Estates (E) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning district to be known as the Avalon of Naples RPUD to allow a
maximum of 160 multi-family residential dwelling units, or 82 single-family residential dwelling
units. The subject property, consisting of 22.83± acres, is located in the southeast quadrant of
the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and County Barn Road in Section 8, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and by providing an effective date [PUDZ-
PL20140001179].
Meeting Date: 5/12/2015
Prepared By
Name: SawyerMichael
Title: Project Manager, Zoning & Land Development Review
4/16/2015 2:31:39 PM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development & Environmental Services
Date: 4/21/2015 12:02:02 PM
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager - Planning, Zoning
Date: 4/24/2015 8:57:24 AM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning, Zoning
Date: 4/27/2015 8:24:54 AM
Packet Page -1300-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Name: CasalanguidaNick
Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 4/27/2015 9:02:26 PM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 4/28/2015 1:24:00 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 4/30/2015 10:10:02 AM
Name: UsherSusan
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Office of Management & Budget
Date: 5/4/2015 10:42:59 AM
Name: CasalanguidaNick
Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 5/4/2015 11:36:40 AM
Packet Page -1301-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
0
2
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
0
3
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
0
4
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
0
5
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
0
6
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
0
7
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
0
8
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
0
9
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
1
0
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
1
1
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
1
2
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
1
3
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
1
4
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
1
5
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
1
6
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
-
1
3
1
7
-
5
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
7
.
A
.
Packet Page -1318-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1319-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1320-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1321-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1322-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1323-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1324-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1325-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1326-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1327-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1328-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1329-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1330-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1331-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1332-
5/12/2015 17.A.
Packet Page -1333-
5/12/2015 17.A.