Agenda 03/24/2009 Item # 8B
Agenda Item No. 88
March 24, 2009
Page 1 of 124
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, The Covenant Presbyterian Cburch of Naples, Inc. and Florida
Community Bank, NA, represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman,
Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., are requesting a rezone from the Residential Single-
family (RSF-l) Zoning District to the Community Facilities Planned Unit Development
(CFPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly CFPUD, which
would memorialize the existing church uses and would permit redevelopment consistent
with the Master Plan to allow a maximum of 80,000 square feet for a house of worship,
including day care facilities, a Pre-K through third grade school, and various accessory
uses for Tract A; and an additional 20,000 square feet of house of worship including
children and adult day cares, Pre-K through third grade school and accessory uses for
Tract B. The 15.93-acre subject property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises
the entire block bounded by Ridge Drive, West Street, Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard in
Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East of Colli(~r County, Florida.
OBJECTIVE:
~
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an application to rezone the
subject property from the RSF-l Zoning District to the Community Faci]ities Planned Unit
Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heaven]y CFPUD; and to
insure that the community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERA nONS:
The subject CFPUD, comprised of two tracts ("A" and "B") proposes to allow a maximum of
100,000 square-feet for house of worship uses; adult and child day care facilities, schools for
pre-kindergarten through third grade students with a combined maximum enrollment of 220
attendees; and other accessory uses related to the foregoing. The subject property presently
contains twelve, one-story, principal structures totaling approximately 50,000 square feet. These
structures are generally situated around the centrally located 3.3-acre Lake Cardinal, and except
for one building located at the corner of Myrtle Road and West Street, have been recently
utilized for uses associated with three churches: Covenant PreSb)1erian Church, Living Word
Community Church and Mission Possiblc Ministries. According to the applicants, these churches
currently have a combined capacity of approximately 853 seats.
..-
The Pine Ridge neighborhood in which the subject site is located was platted in ] 956. Houses of
worship were originally permitted by-right in the RSF-I Zoning District until the ]968 Zoning
Ordinance, amended in February of ] 973, began requiring Provisional Use (now called
Conditional Use) approval for houses of worship in the district. Consequently, these church uses
were rendered legally noncol?[cJrming with the ordinance change and subsequently precluded
from any site alterations that would increase their square- footage, pursuant to Land Development
Code (LDC) Section 9.03.02., Requirements for Continuation of Noncoriformities, unless a
rezone of the properties, a Conditional Use, or multiple Variances were sought and approved.
With the subject petition, the first of these options is being pursued, which according to the
applicants, is due to the greater design flexibility afforded by the CFPUD Zoning District relative
Page 1 of 8
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page 2 of 124
to a Conditional Use; and the fact that, as houses of worship and, therefore, dependent upon
long-term fundraising for development, PUDs do not expire after three years if construction has
not been completed (as do Conditional Uses). Rather, PUDs sunset after a five-year time limit,
with the option to seek one two-year extension, thereby offering a total of seven years to meet
the development thresholds provided in LDC Subsection 1 0.02.l3.D, Time Limits for Approved
PUDs. The Variance option was completely ruled out by the applicant due to its inability to
permanently resolve the nonconformities, and the fact that future permitting would require
additional Variances.
As shown on the submitted Master Plan (Exhibit C to the attached Ordinance), the site is divided
into two tracts. Tract A, at approximately 14 acres, encompasses the majority of the site; and
Tract B comprises the remaining 1.9 acres situated in the site's northeastern comer, at the
intersection of West Street and Ridge Drive. Two of the existing structures on the site, owned by
FCB Banks, Inc., are proposed to remain and, as such, are depicted on the Master Plan in the
eastern half of Tract B. The remaining structures on the site are located on Tract A and are
owned by Covenant Presbyterian Church. None of the principal structures on Tract A is
proposed to remain. However, it should be noted that any of the existing structures would still be
eligible for redevelopment provided that they were done so in accordance with the development
standards for Tract A of the CFPUD document.
According to LDC Subsection 2.03.05.B, the Community Facilities Planned Unit Development
District (CFPUD) is intended to accommodate public facilities, institutional uses, open space
uses, recreational uses, water-related or dependent uses, and other such uses generally serving
the community at large. The proposcd CFPUD, if approved, would allow for a maximum of
100,000 square-feet of houses of worship and other associated uses (80,000 square-feet would be
permitted on Tract A and 20,000 square-feet would be permittcd on Tract B).
The development standards for both Tracts A and B are described in detail on page ten of the
staff report. Neveliheless, as shown on the conceptual Master Plan, a total of five access points
are proposed for Tract A: two along Trail Boulevard; one on Myrtle Road; one on Ridge Drive,
and one on West Street. Tract B has one access point along each of its two abutting roadways
(one for ingress only and one for egress only), both of which would close if/when this tract
redevelops, as noted in the legend on the Master Plan. "Primary" access points, or those which
according to the Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) are expected to handle 95 percent of all
trips, are depicted on the Master Plan with solid black arrows along Trail Boulevard, Ridge
Drive and Myrtle Road. (For a graphic depiction of the anticipated traffic distribution, see
Appendix 3 of the staff report, entitled "Project Traffic Distribution, Heavenly Mixed-Use
PUD"). The remaining five percent of trips would be handled by the "secondary" access points
along West Street and Ridge Drive, until such time that Tract B redevelops and these accesses
are closed; at which point, access for the tract would only be afforded from Tract A. As noted in
the Developer Commitments (Exhibit F to the Ordinance) traffic control for the site's religious
services would be provided by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved agency at
location(s) to be dctermined by the County Transportation Administrator.
Throughout the phased development of thc site, the applicants would maintain the minimum 30
percent open space required pursuant to LDC Subsection 4.07.02.G.3, Open Space
Page 2 of8
Agenda Item No. 86
March 24, 2009
Page 3 of 124
Requirements; however, they have committed to ultimate]y providing 40 percent open space at
build-out, or 6.3 acres, of the site's total area.
FISCAL IMP ACT:
The rezoning action, in and of itself, would have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no
guarantee that the project, at build out, would maximize its authorized level of development,
however, if the CFPUD is approved, a portion of the existing land would be developed and the
new development would result in an impact on Collier County public facilities.
The County collects all applicable impact fees before the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impacts of each new development on its public facilities. These impact fees are used to
fund projects identified in the GMP's Capita] Improvement Element (CIE) as needed to maintain
adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the
requirements of Section 1O.02.07(C) of the Land Deve]opment Code, fifty percent of the
estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project are required to be paid
simultaneously with the approval of each final local development order. Other fees co lIected
before the issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees
associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system.
Please note that the inclusion of impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes
only; they are 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 15.93-acre site lies entirely within the Urban
Residential Subdistrict. The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an
area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are
concentrated. Urban-designated areas of the county contain a vast aITay of residential and non-
residential land uses. The Future Land Use Element's (FLUE) Future Land Use Designation
Description Section l.a.5 provides that "Urban designated areas will accommodate community
facilities such as churches, group housing uses, cemeteries, schools and school facilities co-
located with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers, where
feasible and mutually acceptable." As the proposed uses of the CFPUD are the same as those
specifically provided for in the Subdistrict, this CFPUD may be deemed consistent with the
GMP.
GMP Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
The Zoning and Land Development Review staff is responsible for that analysis as part of their
review of the petition in its entirety. ]n reviewing thc appropriateness of the requested
uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the
subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowcd use intensitics and densities,
development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass,
building location, traffic generation/attraction, ct cetera.
Page 3 of 8
Agenda Item No. 86
March 24, 2009
Page 4 of 124
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) and has determined that the estimated vehicular trips generated by the proposed
rezone would not have an adverse affect on the adjacent roadways, subject to the church seating
restrictions provided in Exhibit F of the CFPUD document (commitment No.6) that limits the
seating to 780 seats within Tract A unless turn lanes servicing the site are extended or a traffic
study determines that the existing lanes are adequate to allow the increase to 1,000 seats. Thus,
this petition may be deemed consistent with policies 5.] and 5.2 of the Transportation E]ement.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document supporting land use decisions such as
the subject CFPUD. Staff is required to make a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the
overall GMP as part of its recommendation of appro va], approval with conditions, or denial of a
rezoning petition. Staff believes this petition is consistent with the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM), the FLUE, and all of the applicab]e provisions of the Transportation E]ement. Based
upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses may be deemed consistent with the
goals, objective and policies of the GMP.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT:
Approval of this CFPUD would have no affordable housing impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed this application for consistency with the Land
Development Code and Growth Management Plan. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
waiver was granted because the site was previously cleared and/or developed. The retained
vegetation retention requirement was evaluated separately for the developed and undeveloped
portions of the site. The developed pOliion of the site has retained several native trees, and to meet
native vegetation retention requirements, a minimum of 44 native canopy trees would need to be
planted to replace the existing trees that would be removed from this portion of the CFPUD. The
applicants have proposed to incorporate the 44 native trees into the perimeter buffers adjacent to
West Street and Myrtle Road to further enhance the vegetation within these areas. The
undeveloped portion of the site contained 0.8 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 0.]2 acres
of native vegetation (0.8 acres X required ]5 percent = 0.12 acres) would be required in addition to
the 44 native canopy trees. The 0.]2 acre of preserve for this site must be recreated due to a
violation of the Exotic Vegetation Remova] Permit issued for the undeveloped lot. Native
understory was mechanically removed JTom this parcel and this removal further damaged the root
zones of the slash pines, which contributed to the destruction of the canopy. Furthermore, section
10.02.06 E of the LDC requires that mitigation for permit violations recreate the vegetative
community that was lost. This section requires the mitigation to restore the habitat that previously
existed on the site, which was an upland habitat (i.e. pine tlatwoods). Staff has incorporated a
condition of approval in Exhibit 1 of the CFPUD document to ensure compliance with this
prOVISIon.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
Pursuant to LDC Section 8.06.03 0.1 Powers and Duties, the EAC did not review this petition
because no protected species or wetland impacts were identified on the site.
Page 4 of 8
Agenda Item No. 86
March 24, 2009
Page 5 of 124
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
This item was scheduled for the CCPe's December 4, 2008 public hearing; however, due to an
advertising error, it was continued to the CCPe's January] 5, 2009 public hearing date. At that
hearing, the proposed CFPUD document underwent multiple revisions on the floor and,
consequently, was continued by the CCPC so that a thorough review of the revised document
could be carried out by staff and a second presentation made to the CCPC on February 19, 2009.
At that hearing, the CCPC voted 6-2 (with one abstention, citing a conflict of interest) to forward it
to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the
following conditions:
]. Any plan submitted pursuant to this CFPUD shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved conceptual Master Plan entitled "Exhibit C Master Plan," prepared by Planning
Development Incorporated, consisting of one sheet, dated November 25, 2008, as revised
through January ]6,2009, except as conditioned.
2. The access points located on West Street and Ridge Drive, depicted on Tract B of the Master
Plan, shall close when this tract redevelops.
3. The required O. ]2-acre re-created preserve shall meet County preserve requirements and shall
recreate the habitat that previously existed on-site (pine flatwoods), including all three
vegetative strata.
4. A landscape planting plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of the first
SDP for each of the tracts.
5. The property owners shall provide, or shall pay the County to provide, a bus shelter at the
existing Collier Area Transit stop located adjacent to US 4], which is located at the stub-out in
the median separating Trail Boulevard and US 4] as depicted on the Master Plan. This bus
shelter is required to be constructed when development reaches a one percent or greater impact
on USA], or as a stipulation of Phase Two improvements, whichever occurs first.
The two opposing commissioners considered the density allocated to Tract B excessive, which
they believed violated the neighborhood's standards of health, safety and welfare.
Staff has received one letter of support (from the Pelican Bay Foundation), two letters of
objection, and a petition objecting to the proposal that was signed by 48 residents of Pine Ridge
(representing approximately 32 households) at the time of the applicants' first submittal (see
Appendix 6 to the original staff report). Staff was also copied on two letters from the
Architectural Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions to Covenant Presbyterian Church,
both dated February 1, 2008, and a third dated October 9, 2008 (see Appendix 7 to the original
staff report). Finally, staff received a third letter of objection, dated January 22, 2009 (see
Appendix 1 to the second supplemental staff report). Because these letters of objection were
received from the community and this item did not receive a unanimous recommendation of
approval it could not be placed on the Bee's Summary Agenda.
Page 5 of 8
Agenda Item No, 88
March 24, 2009
Page 6 of 124
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is a site specific rezone from an RSF-] Zoning District to the Community Facilities Planned
Unit Deve]opment (CFPUD) Zoning District. Site specific rezones are quasi-judicia] in nature
and require ex parte disclosures. As such 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
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 CFPUD 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 rclation 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, particu]arly 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 cxpcnse? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
afier consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed CFPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
ofthe 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 CFPUD 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 ]iteral
application of such regulations.
Page6of8
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page 7 of 124
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?
] O. Will the proposed CFPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern ?
] I. Would the requested CFPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
]2. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Vv'hether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
] 5. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic decmed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types ofvehicu]ar traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the devclopment, or otherwise affect public safety?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
] 7. 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.
2]. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonab]y") 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 pennitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the propeliy and the degree of site
alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range
of potentia] uses under the proposed zoning classification.
Page 7 of 8
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page 8 of 124
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed CFPUD 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 Faci]ities Ordinance [Code
ch.l06, article II], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the CFPUD 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, substantia] 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.
This item is legally sufficient for Board action. A supermajority vote of the Board is necessary
for Board action. -HFAC
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the BCC approve PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, subject to the conditions of
approval as recommended by staff and the CCPC, which have been incorporated into the
attached CFPUD ordinance.
PREPARED BY:
John-David Moss, A]CP, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
Page 8 of 8
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page 1 01'2
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page g of 124
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
88
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, The Covenant Presbyterian Church of
Naples, Inc, and Florida Community Bank, NA, represented by Richard Yovanovich of
Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., are requesting a rezone from the
Residential Single-family (RSF-1) Zoning District to the Community Facilities Planned Unit
Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly CFPUD, which
would memorialize the eXIsting church uses and would permit redevelopment consistent with
the Master Plan to allow a maximum of 80.000 square feet for a house of worship, including
day care facilities, a Pre-K through third grade school, and various accessory uses for Tract
A: and an additional 20,000 square feet of house of worship including children and adult day
cares, Pre-K through third grade school and accessory uses for Tract B. The 15.93-acre
subject property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire block bounded
by Ridge Drive, West Street, Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard in SectlOn 3, Township 49
South, Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida. CTS
3/24/200990000 AM
Prepared By
John-David Moss
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Senior Planner
Date
Zoning & Land Development
9122/20089:30:49 AM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
3/10/2009 10:40 AM
A pproved By
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
3111/20094:47 PM
Approved By
Susan Istenes, AICP
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Zoning & Land Development Director
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
3/12/20098:29 AM
Approved By
Heidi F. Ashton
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
3112/200911:07 AM
Approved By
Ray Bellows
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Chief Planner
Date
Approved By
Zoning & Land Development Review
3/12120091:10 PM
Jeff Klatzkow
Assistant County Attorney
Date
Page 2 of2
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page 10 of 124
County Attorney
County Attorney Office
3/12/20093:48 PM
A pproved By
OMB Coordinator
OMS Coordinator
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
3/13/2009 8: 59 AM
Approved By
Mark Isackson
Budget Analyst
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
3/13/200910:39 AM
A pproved By
James V. Mudd
County Manager
Date
Board of County
Commissioners
County Manager's Office
3/16/20095:50 PM
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page 11 of 124
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
6968
(i)',
~
. .
'O" ~
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
D AMENDMENT TO PUD (PUDA) ~ PUD REZONE (PUDZ)
REZONE (PUDZ-A)
D PUD TO PUD
PETmON NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
To be completed by staff
APPLICANT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) THE COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES.
INC.
ADDRESS _6926 N. TAMIAMI
TRAil
CITY NAPLES
STATE FL ZIP _34108
TELEPHONE #.AGENT: 263-6934 CELL #
NIl.
NIl.
_FAX #
E-MAIL
ADDRESS: NIl.
AND
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) MISSION POSSIBLE MINISTRIES. INC.
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page 12 of 124
ADDRESS ___621 RIDGE
DRIVE_______________CITY NAPLES ___STATE__JL__2IP 34108
TELEPHONE # AGENT: 263-6934 CELL # ______N/A__________JAX #
________N/A____________
E-MAIL
ADDRE5S:_________ N / A____________________________________________________________
NAME OF AGENT ____
FERNANDEZ. AICP
ADDRESS __5133 CASTELLO DR.. SUITE
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED/MICHAEL R.
L______ClTY __NAPLES______ST A TE___EL___ZIP _34103____
TELEPHONE #___239-263-6934______CELL # ___239-370-6557
6981
FAX # __239-263-
E-MAIL
ADDRE5S:________ PDIMRF@AOL.COM
-----------------------------------------
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF
ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE
REGULATIONS.
ASSOCIA TIONS
Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide
additional sheets if necessary. N I A
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
------------------------------------------------------
Application For Public Hearing for PUD Rezone 0 1/18/07
MAILING ADDRESS __________________________ CITY _____________
ZIP__________
Agenda Item No, 88
STATE ______j\;1arch 24, 2009
Page 13 of 124
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS __________________________ CITY _____________ STATE _______
ZIP__________
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS __________________________ CITY _____________ STATE _______
ZIP__________
NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS __________________________ CITY ___________ STATE ____ ZIP _______
NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION: _____________________________________________________
MAILING ADDRESS __________________________ CITY ___________ STATE ____ ZIP _______
Disclosure ofInterest Information
a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the
entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an
ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use
additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
-----------------------------------
Agenda Item No. 86
March 24, 2009
-------------------""Page 14 of 124
-----------------------------------
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and
stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Lots #1-4, 5.6.7. and #10-13.
100%
The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples. Inc.
Lots_#8 and #9_____________________
100%
Mission Possible Ministries. Inc_______
c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the
trust with the percentage of interest.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No. 86
March 24, 2009
--------------------page 15 of 124
d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list
the name of the general and/or limited partners.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals,
a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract
purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or
partners.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Date of Contract:________________
f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list
all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0]/18/07
Name and Address
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page 16 of 124
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
g. Date subject property acquired ~ leased D Term of lease
yrs./mos.
Owner: The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples. Inc.
Folio Nos: 67285160009 - Acquired: 11115/65; Lot 1, & Lots 10-13
6/02/81; Lot 2
5/01/91; Lot 3
5/21/91; Lot 4
12/09/91
67285280002 -Acquired: 12/09/91; Lot 5
67285360003 and 67285320001 - Acquired: 12/21/04;
Lots6&7
Owner: Mission Possible Ministries. Inc.
Folio No.: 67285400002 - Acquired: 2116/07; Lots 8 & 9
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option:
Date option terminates:
Anticipated closing date
,or
h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase
occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the
final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on
his behalf, to submit
a supplemental disclosure of interest form.
PROPERTY LOCATION
Detailed le!!al description of the propertv covered bv the application: (If space Is Inadequate,
attach on separate page.) If request Involves change to more than one zoning district,
include separate legal description for property Involved In each district. Applicant shall
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No. 8B
submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, mmr:i~OOg
1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-application meeting. Page 17 of 124
NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions
arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be
required.
Section/Township/Range __03 ____/_-49 S_____/__25 E ____
Lot(s): 1 throuGh 13 ___ Block: __0___ Subdivision:____Pine RidGe
Exte n s io n ________________
Plat Bool<.-_1.-____ Page #:__51 and 51 D______
Property I.D.#s:__67285160009. 67285280002. 67285360003. 67285320001 and
67285400002______
Metes & Bounds Description: ____Please see attached LeGal Description - Exhibit(s) A and
A.l_________
Size of prODertv: _1.290 '" ___ft. X __540 '"____ft. = Total Sq. Ft. 696.600 '"__
Acres___15.93,"
Address/l!enerallocation of snbiect property:
6926 Trail Boulevard, iust east of Tamiami Trail N.. entire block., south of Ridl!e
Drive and north of Mvrtle Road and west of West Street
PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): 0 Residential 0 Community Facilities
o Commercial 0 Industrial I2SJ Mixed Use
Zoning
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Land use
N_ RSF - I/ROW ____RIDGE DRIVE _
S___ RSF - I/ROW ___MYRTLE ROAD _______
E___ RSF - 1 I ROW ___WEST BOULEVARD ___
W_ RSF - I/ROW ____TRAIL BOULEVARD
_______e
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
D h f h b. . hPaqe 18.of 124
oes t e owner 0 t e su ~ect property own property contiguous to t e -Subject
property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If
space is inadequate, attach on separate page). N I A
Section/Township/Range _______/ _______/ _______
Lot: _________ Block: _______ Subdivision:___________________________________
Plat Book_____ Page #:______ Property I.D.#:__________________________________
Metes & Bounds Description: _______________________________________________
REZONE REQUEST
This application is requesting a rezone from the _RSF - 1 _________ zoning district(s) to
the __Heavenlv Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)________ zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property:
The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples and
Mission Possible Ministries and their related church uses and associated accessory
am e nit i e s. ______________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Churches. schools. davcare and similar
accessory uses related to churches
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Original PUD Name:_______N/A________________________ Ordinance
No. :______N I A_____________
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis
and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration
of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone
request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup
materials and documentation in support of the request.
PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.B)
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone Oli J Xi07
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposlJWi 19 of 124
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed 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, Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the
growth management plan.
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.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of
justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions,
however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact
the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No, 88
requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by exiM~ Cleefdlog
. t' Page 20 of 124
restnc Ions.
Previous land use petitions on the subiect propertv: To your knowledge, has a public
hearing been held on this property within the last year? 0 Yes ~ No
If so, what was the nature of that hearing?
m'
1
"
i
NOTICE:
This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency"
has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The
application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the
application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to
continue processinq or otherwise actively pursue the rezoninq for a period of six
(6) months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and
an application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An
application deemed "closed" may be re-opened by submitting a new application,
repayment of all application fees and granting of a determination of "sufficiency",
Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code. (lDC Section
10.03.05.Q.)
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01118/07
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS
FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST
Agenda Item No. 88
March 24, 2009
Page 21 of 124
APPLICANT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) ___THE COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES.
INC. _____________
ADDRESS 6926 N. TAMIAMI
TRAIL________CITY __NAPLES______ST A TE___FL___2IP _34108 ___
TELEPHONE # _____________________CELL # ___________________JAX #
E-MAIL
ADDRESS: _________N / A____________________________________________________________
AND
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) ___MISSION POSSIBLE MINISTRIES. INC.
ADDRESS 621 RIDGE
DRIVE ______________CITY ___NAPLES
STATE___FL ___ZIP 34108____
TELEPHONE # _____________________CELL # ____________________FAX #
E-MAIL
AD DRESS :_________________________________________________________________________
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): ___6926 Trail Boulevard
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Section/Township/Range __03_____/ __49 S ____/__25 E_____
Application For Public Hearing FOT PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Lot(s): _1 throuQh 13 _______ Block: __0___ Subdivision:____Pine RidQe
Agenda Item No. 88
March 24, 2009
Page 22 of 124
Exte n s ion________________
Plat Boolc_l_____ Page #: 51 and 51 D______
Property 1.D.#s:__67285160009. 67285280002. 67285360003. 67285320001 and
67285400002
Metes & Bounds Description: ____Please see attached LeQal Descriotion - Exhibit(s) A and
&1.---------
TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED
(Check applicable system):
COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM ~
a. CllY UTlLllY SYSTEM 0
b. FRANCHISED UTILllY SYSTEM 0
PROVIDE NAME
d. PACKAGE TREATMENT PlANT 0
(GPD capacity)
e. SEPTIC SYSTEM 0
TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED
a. COUNTY UTIUlY SYSTEM ~
b. CllY UTILllY SYSTEM 0
c. FRANCHISED UTIUlY SYSTEM 0
PROVIDE NAME
d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL,) 0
STATEMENT OF UTlUlY PROVISIONS - page 2
TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED:
PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS:
A. WATER-PEAK AVERAGE DAILY
B. SEWER-PEAK AVERAGE DAILY
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No. 88
IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WJS.ifffiR24, 2009
Page 23 of 124
SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE
REQUI RED __________________
NARRATIVE STATEMENT: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and
schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a
specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If
percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved
shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional
engineer.
COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY DEDICATION STATEMENT: If the project is located
within the services boundaries of Collier County's utility service system,
written notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate to Collier
County Utilities the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within
the project area upon completion of the construction of these facilities in
accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the at time.
This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system
development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities
Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable,
the statement shall contain shall contain an agreement to dedicate the
appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems.
STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY CAPACITY FROM OTHER PROVIDERS: Unless
waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the
project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other
than the County, a statement from that provider indicating that there is
adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No. 86
March 24, 2009
Page 24 of 124
AFFIDAVIT
Well, The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naoles, Inc. being first duly
sworn, depose and say that well amlare the owners of the property described
herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers
to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information,
all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of
this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. Well
understand that the information requested on this application must be complete
and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or
County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this
application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submilled.
As property owner Well further authorize Planninq Develooment Incorporated I
Michael R. Fernandez, AICP___________________ to act as ourlmy representative in
any matters regarding this Petition.
Signature of Property Owner
Typed or Printed Name and Title of
Owner
Covenant Presbyterian Church of
Naples, Inc.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01118/07
Agenda Item No, 86
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day 01\o1arch 24, 2009
Page 25 of 124
____________, 200____, by _________________________who is personally known to me
h d d 'd 'f .
or as pro uce ________________________as I entl Icatlon.
State of Florida
County of Collier
(Signature of Notary Public - State of
Florida)
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public)
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No. 86
March 24, 2009
Page 26 of 124
AFFI DAVIT
We/I, Mission Possible Ministries, Inc. being first duly sworn, depose and
say that we/I am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the
subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this
application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and
other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are
honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We/I understand that the
information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that
the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not
be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed
complete, and all required information has been submitted.
As property owner We/I further authorize Plannina Develooment Incoroorated /
Michael R. Fernandez. AICP___________________ to act as our/my representative in
any matters regarding this Petition.
Signature of Property Owner
Owner
Ministries, Inc.
Typed or Printed Name and Title of
Mission Possible
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of
____________, 200____, by _________________________who is personally known to me
or has produced ________________________as identification.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/1 8/07
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page 27 of 124
State of Flori da
County of Collier
(Signature of Notary Public - State of
Florida)
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public)
COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL
The undersigned do hereby swear Of affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property
commonly known as The Tract A portion of the Heavenlv Mixed Use Planned llnit Develooment (MPUD)
more soecificallv described in public records as havinl! the followinf:! addresses:
6926,6929 and 6992 Trail Bonlevard. Naples. Florida. 34108
And 511 and 519 West Avenne. Naples. Florida. 34108
(Street address and City, State and Zip Code)
and legally described in Exhibit A.I and A.2 attached hereto.
The property described herein is the subject of an application for a mixed -use planned unit development
(MPUD) zoning. We hereby designate Plannine Development Incorporated I Michael R. Fernandez.
AICP , legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are
authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This
authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications,
plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only
entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control
is delivered to Collier County,
The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project:
1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed
on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development
rezoning.
2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and
stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in
part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County.
3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or
safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development
Code.
4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and
restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within
the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions.
5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms,
safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance.
The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development
and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms,
conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0]/18/07
Signature of Owner
Printed Name and Title for:
Covenant PreSb)1erian Church of Naples, Inc.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
Sworn to (or affinned) and subscribed before me this day of . 200_ by
who is personally known to me or has produced
as identification.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD ReWlle 01118/07
Notary Public
(Name typed. printed or stamped)
(Serial Number, ifany)
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page 28 of 124
COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL Agenda Item No. 86
March 24, 2009
Page 29 of 124
The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property
commonly known as The Tract B portion of the Heavenlv Mixed Use Planned Unit Development IMPUDl
more soecificallv described in ell bUe records as havinl! the followine: addresses:
621 Rid2e Drive. Naples. Florida. 34108
(Street address and City, State and Zip Code)
and legally described in Exhibit A,] and A.2 attached hereto.
The property described herein is the subject of an application for a mixed -use planned unit development
(MPUD) zoning. We hereby designate PlanniDl! Develooment Incorcorated / Michael R. Fernandez.
AICP , legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are
authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This
authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications,
plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only
entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control
is delivered to Collier County.
The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project:
1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed
on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development
rezoning.
2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and
stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in
part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County.
3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or
safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development
Code.
4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and
restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within
the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions.
5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms,
safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance.
The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development
and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms,
conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development.
Signature of Owner
Printed N mne and Title for:
Mission Possible Ministries, Inc.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this day of . 200_ by
who is personally known to me or has produced
as identification.
Notary Public
(Name typed, printed or stamped)
(Serial Number, if any)
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0]/18107
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS)
Agenda Item No. 86
March 24, 2009
r 08C SC v~ : r
A TIS is required unless waived at the pre-application meeting. The TIS required
may be either a major or minor as determined at the pre-application meeting.
Please note the following with regard to TIS submittals:
MINOR TIS: Generally required for rezone requests for property less than 10 acres
in size, although based on the intensity or unique character of a petition, a major
TIS may be required for petition of ten acres or less.
MAIOR TIS: Required for all other rezone requests.
A minor TIS shall include the following:
1.
Trip Generation:
(at build-out)
Annual Average Daily Traffic
Peak Hour (AADT)
Peak Season Daily Traffic
Peak Hour (PSDT)
2.
Trip Assignment:
Within Radius of Development Influence (RDI)
3.
Existing Traffic:
Within RDI
AADT Volumes
PSDT Volumes
Level of Service (LOS)
4. Impact of the proposed use on affected major thoroughfares, including any
anticipated changes in level of service (LOS).
5, Any proposed improvements (to the site or the external right-of-way) such as
providing or eliminating an ingress/egress point, or providing turn or decel
lanes or other improvements.
6. Describe any proposal to mitigate the negative impacts on the transportation
system.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0]/18/07
7.
Agenda Item No, 86
For Rezones Only: State how this request is consistent with the appli<Mbt:e 24, 2009
Page 31 of 124
policies of the Traffic Circulation Element(TCE) of the Growth Management
Plan (GMP), including policies 1.3, 1.4,4.4, 5.1,5.2, 7.2 and 7.3.
A Major TIS shall address all of the items listed above (for a Minor TIS, and shall
also include an analysis of the following:
1. Intersection Analysis
2. Background Traffic
3. Future Traffic
4. Through Traffic
5. Planned/Proposed Roadway Improvements
6. Proposed Schedule (Phasing) of Development
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS) STANDARDS
The following standards shall be used in preparing a TIS for submittal in
conjunction with a conditional use or rezone petition:
1. Trio Generation: Provide the total traffic generated by the project for each link
within the project's Radius of Development Influence (RDI) in conformance with
the acceptable traffic engineering principles. The rates published in the latest
edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report
shall be used unless documentation by the petitioner or the County justifies the
use of alternative rates.
2. Trio Assiqnment: Provide a map depicting the assignment to the network, of
those trips generated by the proposed project. The assignment shall be made to
all links within the RDI. Both annual average and peak seasonal traffic should be
depicted.
3. Existinq Traffic: Provide a map depicting the current traffic conditions on all
links within the RDI. The AADT, PSDT, and LOS shall be depicted for all links
within the RDI.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No. 86
4. Level of Service (LOS): The LOS of a roadway shall be expressed in terfl'lf!rcoF'4:I'@Og
Page 32 of 124
applicable Collier County Generalized Daily Service Volumes as set forth in the
TCE of the GMP.
5. Radius of Development Influence (ROD: The TIS shall cover the least of the
following two
areas:
a) an area as set forth below; or,
b) the area in which traffic assignments from the proposed project on the
major thoroughfares exceeds one percent of the LOS "e.
Land Use
Distance
Residential
5 Miles or as required by DRI
Other (commercial, industrial, institutional, etc.)
o - 49, 999 Sq. Ft. 2 Miles
50,000 - 99, 999 Sq. Ft. 3 Miles
100,000 - 199, 999 Sq. Ft. 4 Miles
200,000 - 399, 999 Sq. Ft 5 Miles
400,000 & up 5 Miles
In describing the RDI the TIS shall provide the measurement in road miles
from the proposed project rather than a geometric radius.
6. Intersection Analvsis: An intersection analysis is required for all intersections
within the RDI where the sum of the peak-hour critical lane volume is projected
to exceed 1,200 Vehicles Per Hour (VPH).
7. Backoround Traffic: The effects of previously approved but undeveloped or
partially developed projects which may affect major thoroughfares within the
RDI of the proposed project shall be provided. This information shall be
depicted on a map or, alternatively, in a listing of those projects and their
respective characteristics.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone () 1 /18/07
8.
Agenda Item No. 88
March 24, 2009
Page 33 of 124
Future Traffic: An estimate of the effects of traditional increases in traffic
resulting from potential development shall be provided. Potential
development is that which may be developed maximally under the effective
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the Collier County Land Development
Code. This estimate shall be for the projected development areas within the
projects RDI. A map or list of such lands with potential traffic impact
calculations shall be provided.
9.
Throuah Traffic: At a minimum, increases in through traffic shall be
addressed through the year 2015. The methodology used to derive the
estimates shall be provided. It may be desirable to include any additional
documentation and backup data to support the estimation as well.
10. Planned/Proposed Roadwav Improvements: All proposed or planned roadway
improvements located within the RDI should be identified. A description of
the funding
commitments shall also be included.
11. Proiect Phasinq: When a project phasing schedule is dependent upon
proposed roadway improvements, a phasing schedule may be included as
part of the TIS. If the traffic impacts of a project are mitigated through a
phasing schedule, such a phasing schedule may be made a condition of any
approval.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No. 8B
"~'oh?d ?nr 9
Page 34 of 1 4
PUD REZONE APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Application information must be clearly printed or typed. All material must be
legible and completed in full. All requirements must be submitted as indicated
below, unless otherwise determined during the pre-application meeting.
GENERAL APPLICATION
To be completed in full and to include the following information.
PUD list of permitted uses
Development Standards Table
List of proposed deviations from the LDC (if any)
List of Developer Commitments
Refer to LDC Section 1 0.02.13.A.2 for required information
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES WITH THE ADDRESSING CHECKLIST FORM
Provide copies of notes taken at pre-application meeting
DIGITAL REOUIREMENTS
An electronic version of all plans and documents on CDROM as part of the
submittal package.
FEES
Required fees in accordance with current Fee Schedule. Check shall be made
payable to: Collier County Board of Commissioners.
Application Fee
~ PUD Rezone = $10,000 + $25 per acre
~ PUD to PUD Rezone = $8,000 + $25 per acre
Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review = $2,250
Application fOf Public Hearing FOf PUD Rezone 01/1 8/07
Legal Advertising Fees
~ BCC = $363
~ CCPC = $760
Fire Code Review = $150
EIS Review = $2,500
Agenda Item No. 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 35 of 124
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by Section 10.02.02. of the
Land Development Code (LDC) , or a request for waiver if appropriate.
AERIAL PHOTO
Whether or not an EIS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken
within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one inch equals 400 feet,
shall be submitted. Said aerial shall identify plant and/or wildlife habitats and their
boundaries. Such identification shall be consistent with Florida Department of
Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System. Additionally, a
calculation of the acreage (or square feet) of native vegetation on site, by area, and
a calculation and location(s) of the required portion of native vegetation to be
preserved (per LDC Section 3.05.07).
BOUNDARY SURVEY
Boundary Survey, no more than six months old, abstracted, signed, sealed and
prepared by a Florida registered land surveyor, showing the location and
dimensions of all property lines, existing streets or roads, easements, rights-of-
way, and areas dedicated to the public.
HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
A historical and archeological surveyor waiver application if property is located
within an area of historical or archaeological probability (as identified at pre-
application meeting)
PUD MASTER PLAN
In compliance with Section 10.02..1 3.A.1 of the Land Development Code.
OWNER/AGENT AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit signed by owner authorizing agent to act as representative. Must be
signed and notarized.
Application For Public Hearing FOf PUD Rezone 01/18/07
WARRANTY DEED
A copy of the last recorded deed, contract for sale or agreement for sale, or a
notarized statement of ownership clearly demonstrating ownership and control of
the subject lot or parcel of land.
Agenda Item No. 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 36 of 124
ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING
Architectural rendering of any proposed structures
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS)
Unless waived at the pre-application meeting, a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) must be
submitted. Please refer to attached TIS standards.
UTILITY PROVISIONS STATEMENT
A copy of the Utility Provisions Statement with required attachments and sketches.
Please refer to attached form.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
Including all Appendices and Exhibits
PERMITS
Copies of State and/or Federal permits
POSTAL SERVICE LETTER OF NO OBJECTION
Provide a copy of the letter notifying the U.S. Postal Service of the proposed project.
The letter should be addressed to:
Robert M. Skebe
U.S. Postal Service
1200 Goodlette Road
Naples, Florida 34102-9998
NEIGHBORHOOR INFORMATIONAL MEETING (NIM)
Required per LDC Section 10.03.05.E. Please see attachment for requirements.
OTHER
Application For Public Hearing For I'UD Rezone 0 ]/18/07
Agenda Item No, 8B
Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional ~ets2.4n(jl09
'd 'f' d d' h I" "I d' b I' , Pdage 37 of 124
I entl Ie unng t e pre-app Icatlon meeting, InC u Ing ut not Imlte to any
required state or federal permits.
CONTINUANCE FEES
In accordance with Collier County Community Development and Environmental
Services Fee Schedule, when land use petitions are continued, the following fees
will apply:
Requested after petition has been advertised = $500
Requested at the meeting = $750
Additional required advertising charged in addition to continuance fees
BE ADVISED THAT SECTION 10.03.0S.B.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES AN
APPLICANT TO REMOVE THEIR PUBLIC HEARING SIGN (S) AFTER FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINAL ACTION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE
REMOVE All PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISING SIGN(S) IMMEDIATELY.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 38 of 124
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETING
LDC Section 10.03.05.E
Applicant must conduct at least one Neighborhood Informational Meeting (NIM)
after initial staff review and comment on the application and before the Public
Hearing is scheduled with the Planning Commission.
Written notice of the meeting shall be sent to all property owners who are
required to receive legal notification from the County pursuant to Section
10.03.05.B.8.
Notification shall also be sent to property owners, condominium and civic
associations whose members are impacted by the proposed land use change
and who have formally requested the County to be notified.
A copy of the list of all parties noticed, and the date, time, and location of the
meeting, must be furnished to the Zoning Department and the Office of the
Board of County Commissioners no less than ten (10) days prior to the
scheduled date of the NIM.
The applicant must make arrangements for the location of the meeting. The
location must be reasonably convenient to those property owners who are
required to receive notice and the facilities must be of sufficient size to
accommodate expected attendance.
The applicant must place an advertisement of the meeting in that portion of the
newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear stating the
purpose, location, time of the meeting and legible site location map of the
property for which the zoning change is being requested. The display
advertisement must be one-fourth page, in type no smaller than 12 point and
Application for Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/1 8/07
Agenda Item No, 8B
must be placed within a newspaper of general circulation in the Coun1flja8l!1!€'astJ09
-Page 39 of 124
seven (7) days prior to, but no sooner than five (5) days before, the NIM.
The Collier County staff planner assigned to the project must attend the NIM
and shall serve as the facilitator of the meeting; however, the applicant is
expected to make a presentation of how it intends to develop the subject
property.
The applicant is required to audio or video tape the proceedings of the meeting
and provide a copy to the Zoning Department.
As a result of mandated meetings with the public, any commitments made by
the applicant shall be reduced to writing and made a part of the record of the
proceedings provided to the Zoning Department. These written commitments
will be made a part of the staff report of the County's review and approval
bodies and made a part of the consideration for inclusion in the conditions of
approval.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
, ,
PUD AMENDMENT (PUDA)
PUD REZONE (PUDZ)
PUD to PUD REZONE (PUDZ-A)
APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
March 24, 20 9
Page 40 of 1 4
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER
LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE' INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
#OF NOT
REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED REQUIREE
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS:
1 Additional set if located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area)
Cooies of detailed description of whv amendment is necessarv 24 X
Completed Application with list of Permitted Uses; Development 24 X
Standards Table; List of proposed deviations from the LDC (if any); List
of Developer Commitments (download application from website for
current form)
Pre-aoolication meetina notes 24 X
PUD Conceotual Master Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 y," x ll"coov 24 X
Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 y," x 11" 24 X
I
i coov
Original PUD document/ordinance and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF 24 X
AMENDING THE PUD
Revised PUD aoolication with chanqes crossed thru & underlined 24 X
Revised PUD application w/amended Title page w/ord #'s, LDC 24 X
1 Q,02,13.A,2
2 Cooies of the followina:
Deeds/Leaal's & Survev (if boundary of oriainal PUD is amended) 2 X
List identifvina Owner & all oarties of corooration 2 X
Owner/Affidavit sianed & notarized 2 X
Covenant of Unified Control 2 X
Comoleted Addressina checklist 2 X
4 Cooies of the fOllowinq:
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital/electronic copy of EIS
or exemption iustification - EIS Waiver Renuested 4 X
Historical Surveyor waiver request 4 X
Utility Provisions Statement w/sketches 4 X
Architectural renderinq of proposed structures 4 X
Survev, sioned & sealed 4 X
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
^
Traffic Imoact Statement (TIS) or waiver ')C" Ma ' ,
7 ch 24, 2009
Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min scaled I-a e 41 011:<4
X
1"=400' 5
Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans (CDRom or
Diskette) 1 x
Letter of No Obiection from the U.S. Postal Service 1 X
If located in RFMU (Rural Frinqe Mixed Use) Receivinq Land Areas
Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. Lacavera, State of Florida
Division of Forestry @ 239-690-3 500 for information regarding
"Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan", LDC Section 2.03.08,A.2.a,(b)i.c.
Applicant/Agent Signature
Date
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01118/07
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 42 of 124
EXHIBIT A
PERMITTED USES:
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:
], House(s) of Worship
2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list ofpennitted
principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process
outlined in the LOC.
B. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and
structures, including, hut not limited to:
1. A parish life center / community gathering hall for use by members and guests of the
congregation
2. A school and associated educational facilities
3. A parish health and fitness center
4. A parish adult and children's day care center
5. Facilities for maintenance and storage supporting onsite uses
6. Swimming pools and open space for recreation, boardwalks, nature trails, picnic areas,
playgrounds, and fitness trails
7, Rectory
8. Memorial Garden
9. Preserve and Conservation Areas
10. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of
accessory uses, ad determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process
outlined in the LDC.
CONDITIONAL USES (Optional)
1. (list the conditional uses.)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table _ below sets forth the development standards for land uses
within the (type ofPUO) PUD 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.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/] 8/07
EXHIBIT B
TABLE I
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0]/18/07
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 43 of 124
D .. r1..,"
DEVELOPMENT SINGLE SINGLE lWO-FAMILY, MULTI- CLUBHOUSE/ I
STANDARDS FAMILY FAMILY PATIO & FAMILY RECREATION
ATTACHED & ZERO LOT LINE BUILDINGS I
TOWNHOUSE
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MINIMUM LOT AREA S.F, PER UNIT S.F, PER UNIT S.F, PER UNIT S.F. PER UNIT S,F, PER UNIT
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA S.F S,F S,F S,F./D,U. N/A
MIN FRONT YARD FEET FEET FEET FEET N/A
,
, MIN SIDE YARD FEET FEET or FEET or FEET N/A
'~IN REAR YARD FEET FEET FEET FEET N/A
11N PRESERVE SETBACK FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
11N, DISTANCE BElWEEN FEET FEET FEET FEET or BH, N/A
TRUCTURES whichever is
qreater
MAX, BUILDING HEIGHT FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
, NOT TO EXCEED
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
FRONT FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
SIDE FEET FEET FEET FEET BH
REAR FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
PRESERVE SETBACK FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
DISTANCE BETWEEN
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
MAX, BUILDING HEIGHT SPS SPS SPS FEET FEET
NOT TO EXCEED
S,P.S. = Same as Principal Structures
Application For Public Hearing For pun Rezone 01/18/07
BH ~ Building Height
Footnotes as needed
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 45 of 124
GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to
individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association
boundaries shall not be utilized for detennining development standards.
Setback may be either _ feet L') on one side and _ feet L') on the other side in order to provide a minimum
separation between principal structures of ~ feet L'). Alternatively, if the ~ foot L') setback option is not
utilized, then the minimum setback shall not be less than _ feet C) and the combined setback between principal
structures shall be at least ~ feet L'). At the time of the application for subdivision plat approval for each tract, a
lot layout depicting minimum yard setbacks and the building footprint shall be submitted.
TABLE II
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA Sq, Ft. N/A
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH Ft. N/A
MINIMUM YARDS (External)
From Immokalee Road Canal ROW Ft. SPS
From Future Extension of Collier Blvd. Ft. SPS
From Western Project Boundary Ft. Ft.
MINIMUM YARDS (Internal)
Internal Drives/ROW Ft, Ft.
Rear Ft. Ft.
Side Ft. Ft,
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN Ft. or sum of Ft.
STRUCTURES Building heights *
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Retail Buildings Ft. Ft.
Office Buildings Ft. Ft,
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA Sq. Ft. ** N/A
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
I MAX. GROSS LEASABLE AREA
Sq, Ft,
* whichever is greater
** per principal structure, on the finished first floor.
EXHIBIT C
MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(Optional-if legal description is too long)
EXHIBIT E
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC
EXHIBIT F
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMITMENTS
Application For Publjc Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
P~3Q 4G 9f 1r
N/A
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 47 of 124
I, Larry T. Hall, as President of Florida Community Bank being first duly sworn, depose and say
that Florido Community Bank is the owner of the property described as Tract B herein and which
Is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this
application, including the disclosure of Interest Information, all sketches, data, and other
supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true ta the
best of our knowledge and belief. I understand that the information requested on this appllcation
must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or
County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is
deemed com plete, and all required Information has been submitted,
As property owner we further authorize Andrew I. Solis, Esquire of the law firm of Cohen &
Grigsby, P.c. to ao;:t-aS'Q epresentative In any matters regarding this Petition.
(
uthorized R presentative of Ownership Entity
Andrew I. So is a 0
Typed or Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative
Florida Commun t Bank
--
Typed or Printed Na e of Ownership Entity
,
!
r'^-
The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this 3 day of No'.! '-"" h<f
200L by Lo..tt-, -r. \-h-\\ . as pr-ej;ded- of
r-bri'';'' Co "iV\'" , B",.ll who Is persona.!.!:i known to me or has produced
as Identification.
State of fl"r;<t"
County of Le...
c~~ v),c; ".1--.
(Slgncmli e of Notory Public - State of
Florida) S'^,,-,,;-\-'" vJG"",J
",~""'jl% JUANITA WOODS
!."! "'''f:, MY COMMISSION I DO 406946
j,<, '-j EXPIRES: May 24, 2009
t'4;#[,Th~ Born:IodThruNolalYPOOI'IlIUndelW11tll11
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public)
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 48 of 124
AFFIDAVIT
We/I, Florida Communltv Bank Inc.. being first duly sworn, depose and say that well '
am/are the owners of the property described hereIn and which Is the subject matter of
the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions In this application, including
the disclosure of interest Information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary
matter aUached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of
our knowledge and belief. We/I understand that the Information requested on this
application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether
computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be
advertised until thIs application is deemed complete, and all required Information has
been submitted.
As property owner Well further authorize Goodlette. Coleman. Johnson, Yovanovlch
& Koester. PA. to act as our/my representative In any matters regarding this Petition.
,/'-'.
"
RichaJ:cl jf!illPllicb. attorney
Typed or 'Priiitei:!' Name" anailtle of Authorized Representative
FLorida community Bank
Typed or Printed Name of Ownership Entity
Th~ foregoing instrument was acknowledged before l!1,e this
, dayofl\.\oVem\cwy ,20lcd,by UU{lJ I H-Ql{ .as
?res,tU-I'\-'" of Florida Community Bank. Jne, who is personally known 10 me or has
produced as identification.
State of Florida
County Of\\\'\'lC\ii')
J\)(:\> '-?)j '~~-J
(Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida)
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public
......~~u',l~"4! MONICA N. FISCHER
l~ ~1. Notal')' Public. Slate of Florida
i' . .; My ColmlIAIon e,p... Doc 16, 2011
~~ 'PIft1 Commission' CD 717182
I, Ilcrrl:I~'~ Bonded ThfOlJQh Nstlonat Notary Assn.
AG~lW!'\.3Jl.W~A8B
Marcn:!4, 2009
Page 49 of 124
Co~'Y County
_.6"~.... ~
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2008
SUBJECT: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, HEA VENL Y COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD)
PROPERTY OWl\'ERlAGENT:
Owners:
The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc,
6926 Tamiami Trail North
Naples, FL 34108
Florida Community Bank (FCB), rnc,
155 N, Bridge Street
La Belle, FL 33935
Agents:
Michael Fernandez, AICP
Plmming Development Incorporated
513 3 Castello Drive, Suite 2
Naples, FL 34103
Richard D, Yovanovich, Esquire
Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson,
Yovanovich and Koester, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
REOUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Plmming Commission (CCPe) consider an application to rezone the
subject property from the RSF-I Zoning District to the Community Facilities Planned Unit
Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly CFPUD,
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The approximately 15.93-acre subject site is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard and comprises the
entire block bounded by Trail Boulevm'd to the west, Ridge Drive to the north, MYltle Road to
the south and West Strect to the east, in Section 3, Township 49, Range 25 East of Collier
County, Florida The area is identified as "Block 0" on the recorded plat (see location map on
the following page),
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
al"''''
WON
O~
ON.......
Z _0
.,.
EN:?;
Q).c Q)
=~O)
romm
"g:21l.
Q)
OJ
<(
L ~
~ '"
0>
" ~ ~ 0
N
Q . -
::) ~ ~ I , "'
a. g .
..
,
"'"'''' ~
0
.... 0
N
,
N
Th'OOO!t(lll I Z~ Cl
- ::>
"-
..
lI\1llHNe.&oI1Wl Z
Cl
i, !::
>-
i UJ
"-
IIt....~1
'"'''' "tIrod'lIlO"'\jl'(
II J a..
I
<(
2
I Z
. 0
" .. ~NJOlO00D
hit 1I~\ I-
IIi
li <(
U
. 0
.....l
It-'S'fl lInil j~tl'(V!
.
j
~ ~~
g ,~ -
~ ~ ~
ii <
( ~~~
l1W'(l~lOlj JIO/olI n
i
51 ill
B
,
~
,
,
i ---
. ~11J ' ·
. .1 I!
l,~
I'!
liE'
fin ~':>.\
QlI\<,o.;Jm!............
hriO," """-'ltMI'I'r.
'ye U'ld;}"'r'~
l"l3!U.Sl~
~
GULF OF MEXICO
a..
<(
2
<.9
z
z
o
N
COO>"<t
.ws5~
J~
_ 0
0-
EN;n
(ll.J:; Q)
~20)
"'''''''
~:2n..
(ll
OJ
<(
IllOOOOIlMrl:Lt QNOI/OJlroo6Ml~9Zl9:ON(lllO.:I1 ~00911'IIZl9'DNOllOJUI
~ I ^ll~J 31QNIS'n" klM\lJ 11:m1S:G'" }.'II",.J JlllNJ;'.s/\. U
. ., I-JS}l l>u1uol ' l-~ ButbOI . I JSt! :6u,uo'l -.J
:J ~ ----! -'- _,1-- - --,
_0_-
-, -'- - =.- -'..::::p,<lo.r'!l~
-'l1 .- .;:mn.....u:nru ..
-, I
l UelJ81Uawa5eulSw
..IallJM.lIp pCt:)uetju8
POdOOSPUBI
,III
>~, , ,
~~~I/I
w~, , ,
f~~111
.. ~ II' . .
, ~ III
11:1
- ,~'
I lEI
, ,j!,
,~ ~II~I
~HII
..~~, . .
!~ i III
"2. .
'~I ~I
_.J ~i!
~;I!
-lli
'm,
g/I;ll
~jli i i
(10' '
,r~ ill II
.. ~s. . ,-
':1111
1111 ~
._, ,- i~
II __~
. . ,~_ ~ D. t.l
~I:: i~~~ _
'l~ ~ I I . .. ,', "\! ~ i!ui
!jjl"'- ~'.~ '.:!.~..I':,'
~ II II ", .~'~'. ' . . . . =,'
v. ~ :-:g gj lrla-:
.-gA fi :.
=:~ llL,.I,.' r, ~,!!!,)},!!!I_I_~::: I
- 'lI ( '-;-';0""";; .."~ 'CO",;,'" ,;.. '"' I-oo;,o",,,~: ~::.~ II (!
I I' I' J..lINVJ 31~MS:fl" I' .l.lIJ1NJ 3'!;INIS:8.~ I' ^11i'f11J jl!ltuS:ail'l I' 1"'1'1 I
l.'.:lSll :6uluoz l-JSIl :b"l""'" I-JSiI :611111GZ
,~
~
~
..J
~
....
!-
:a
~
::!:
~
::I: I
~
o
z
~N OlOU BBS
sBup nq~
~
'~
~ .
-;
u
,,~
. c
> 0
m
c
'f
.
~
llll'.,! ill
! !!I i 'Iiilllll Ij "
. iuihl'll 1. ·
. "Jr' I II ,\ !
~ i i . I il!!11l i. ii .
" li.1 II I'"j i
iH ,III 111'11'1i Ii Ii' ;
ll!a! I t!I:" i i
iiM I! lll,l\il, II 11, "
'""Ii. i I'i k . ! !" I'!
jil!ii! !II ! ,"llld!1 ,! Ill!
, ,II
i.,'
I Ui
I H"1l
> I HUH
iJffi~ ! ~ @" m
I
~
~
;
I.
l't~
h~
c l'a I
~ rl., ih~
z>. - - ..j~1
! ~~~ 1<( I H;l
9 !!! '" ~ - - 2 ~l'
~ ~ n ~ ~, ~ j~lt
~ ~ ~ ....;,.,. .h,
"IWI "g"
~ 'Iii
, ll~
i ~:.j ~ {
[V ~
;1
!
D
!i i Iii
. ." II"' II'!
M"" ~ ~
, i! I"
',' "
'" '. , , ., 1'111 _I
, I ,I Iii
"~ll Q~ '6ti:
I ii' :1 iri
! il'lli lUll I!!
! !; I' j" 1! ill
I 'Ill' '!h i lil ill!!
i! ijlill !, lif i Iii
. hi Iii Jill!! ~ 1111 Ii III
tll'lft ,.,
"
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 52 of 124
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The subject CFPUD, comprised of two tracts ("A" and "B") proposes to allow the following: A
maximum of 100,000 square-feet for house of worship uses; adult and child day care facilities
and school(s) for pre-kindergatten through third grade students, with a combined maximum
em'ollment of 220 attendees; and other accessory uses related to the foregoing. The CFPUD
would also grant the applicant the right to seek subsequent Conditional Use approval to increase
the maximum permitted number of enrollees on both tracts beyond the 220 person cumulative
total; and for an additional 20,000 square-feet of area to be constructed on Tract A in order to
increase any of the permitted accessory uses. Due to the very recent foreclosure on Tract B on
September 23, 2008, the new owner/co-applicant, FCB Banks, Inc., is making a last-minute
request for a Conditional Use on that tract that would allow for an increase in the size of their
house of worship, Although this information was not relayed at any of the projcct's
Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIM), staff is allowing the applicant to include it in the
attached PUD document since such an increase would require the Conditional Use approval
process, which automatically necessitates anothcr NIM and two more public hearings, It should
also be noted that, if approvcd, the maximum squat'e footage permitted on the site would still
remain 120,000 square-feet.
As depicted on the aerial photo on page four, the subject property presently contains twelve,
onc-story, principal stlUctures totaling approximately 50,000 square feet. These structures are
generally situated around the centrally located 3.3-acre Lake Cardinal, and except for one
building located at the comer of Myrtle Road and West Street, have been recently utilized for
uses associatcd with three churches: Covenant Presbytcrian Church, Living Word Community
Church and Mission Possible Ministries. According to the applicants, these churches currently
have a combined capacity of approximately 750 seats.
The Pine Ridge neighborhood in which the subject site is located was platted in 1956. Houses
of worship were originally permitted by-right in the RSF-l Zoning District until the 1968
Zoning Ordinance, amended in FcblUary of 1973, began requiring Provisional Use (now
called Conditional Use) approval for houses of worship in the district. Consequently, these
church uses were rcndered legally nonconforming with the ordinance change and
subsequently precluded from any site alterations that would increase their square-footage,
pursuant to Land Developmcnt Code (LDC) Section 9,03,02., Requirements for Continuation
of Nonconformities, unless a rezone of the properties, a Conditional Use, or multiple
Variances were sought and approved. With the subject petition, the first of these options is
being pursued, which according (0 the applicants, is due to the greater design flexibility
afforded by the CFPUD Zoning District relative to a Conditional Use; and the faet that, as
houscs of worship and, therefore, dependent upon long-tem1 fundraising for development,
PUDs do not expire after three years if construction has not been completed (as do
Conditional Uses). Rather, PUDs sunset after a five-ycar time limit, with tlle option to seek
one two-year cxtension, thereby offering a total of seven years to meet the development
thresholds provided in LDC Subsection 10,02,13.D, Time Limits for Approved PUDs. The
Varianee option was completely ruled out by the applicant due to its inability to permanently
resolve the nonconformities, and the fact that future permitting would require additional
Variances.
PUD:L-2007-AR-11097. Heavenly CFPUn
2
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 53 of 124
As shown on the submitted Master Plan on the preceding page, the site is divided into two
tracts, Tract A, at approximately 14 acres, encompasses the majority of the site; and Tract B
comprises the remaining 1.9 acres situated in the site's northeastern corner, at the intersection
of West Street and Ridge Drive. Two of the existing structures on the site, owned by FCB
Banks, Inc., are proposed to remain and, as such, are depicted on the Master Plan in the
eastem half of Tract B, The remainder of the structures on the site are located on Tract A and
are owned by Covenant Presbyterian Church. None of the principal structures on Tract A are
proposed to remain. However, it should be noted that any of the cxisting structures, although
proposed for demolition, would still be eligible for redevelopment provided that they were
done so in accordance with the development standards fol' Tract A of the CFPUD document,
According to LDC Subsection 2,03,05.B, the Community Facilities Planned Unit
Development District (CFPUD) is intended to accommodate public facilities, institutional
uses, open space uscs, rccreational uses, water-related or dependent uses, and other such uses
generally serving the community at large. The proposed CFPUD, if approved, would allow
for a maximum of 100,000 square-feet of houses of worship and other associated uses, with
an additional 20,000 square-feet eligible for Tract A by subsequent Conditional Use
approval. The proposed uses and their maximum permitted area have been summarized in the
table below,
Proposed Permitted Uses
A~~essOJ'Y1Jses
Max. Sq uare"l!'ooto$e
House(s) of worship
Tract A
(7BO-seat
maximum')
Tract B.,
(200-seat
maximum')
28,000 sq, ft,
5,600 sq. ft,
School(s) pre-K through third 170 enrollees' 50 enrollees'
grade; and adult/children's day
care center
Religion classrooms and Choir 40,000 sq, ft, 12,400 sq, ft,
Room; Social Hall and Activity
Center
12,000 sq. ft. 2,000 s . ft.
. 80;000 s . ft, 20 000 s
Expansion of school and day
care uses if approved by
Conditional Use process
Total:
20,000 s ,ft,
100,000 sq. ft.
20,000 sq. ft.
'Tile 7BO-seat maximum permitted on Trtlct A can automatically increase to 1,000 seats
once US 41 turn lanes servicing tlte site are extended 01' a traffic study, including a revielV
of neighborhood trips, determines that the existing lanes are adequate (see Exltibit F of the
CFPUD document, commitment No. 6./01' further details).
'This number of enrollees may be reallocated betweell the tracts provided that the
cumulative total does not exceed 220.
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
3
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 54 of 124
As shown in the preceding table, the combined maximum square-footage permitted on the
two tracts would be 100,000 square-feet of floor area. Of this area, 80,000 square-feet would
be permitted on Tract A and 20,000 square-feet would be permitted on Tract B, This subtotal
does not include the additional 20,000 square-feet of floor area that would be located on
Tract A if permitted by Conditional Use approval.
The development standards for both Tracts A and B are described in detail on page ten of
this report. As shown on the conceptual Mastel' Plan, a total of five access points are
proposed for Tract A: two along Trail Boulevard; one on Myrtle Road; one on Ridge Drive,
and one on West Street. Tract B has one access point along each of its two abutting
roadways (one for ingress only and one for egress only), both of which would close iflwhen
this tract redevelops, as noted in the legend on the Master Plan, "Primary" access points, or
those which according to the TranspOliation Impact Statement (TIS) are cxpected to handle
95 percent of all trips, are depicted on thc Mastel' Plan with solid black arrows along Trail
Boulevard, Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road. (For a graphic depiction of the anticipated traffic
distribution, see Appendix 3, entitled "Projcct Traffic Distribution, Heavenly Mixed-Use
PUD"). The rcmaining fivc percent of trips would be handled by the "secondary" access
points along West Street and Ridge Drive, until snch time that Tract B rcdevelops and these
accesses are closed; at which point, access for the tract would only be afforded from Tract
A, As noted in the Developer Commitments (Exhibit F to the CFPUD document) traffic
control for the site's religious scrvices would be provided by law enforcement or a law
enforcement approved agency at location(s) to be determined by the County Transportation
Administrator,
Aerial View
'7 "._.k .. ~ " ':.t. 'c .., ..!'.' ~1',.. C" "'~;::\iJ.l ..
.,~. """ ~ m'd'l ,,:;:"".: !:";';", ,.,"",.'0.-,0;- :. ';',"~-h"".";,,,,~,,_,;,~"l ' '1ft, .C"
t,';~>~;_~r;oh~_,.~,;0!,"il",'~._~~,i,~. ,.",'~::::. " '~ ~; Z ": -: /.. ' . .J' 'I" ~~':-:~~;':;)l>l.I,:~h', ;:'~~'L'i'J;"'" "
','>0,' "!'.,,, "'1 i! 1. ._"',:,/,.:,..,"'.t.\'I~,\*,,~,,<;j_r;,~,,, },
"j)''T" '1-~'~ "'~:i1' :, ~", "1- ) '~It ~ r.,'",;,~.",.:~_,.'."'..,..,:",:.,",,.',.'.",,';~,','.' .,...'..'".:,':',.,.,.....,'.".,..,'.',..<",".:'"'::,',':'''.~'',.:'..,~,.~.'.''.'::..'~'.,',','"..:,,'' ,..::,:,..,::".."::.1:',.,1);.:'."'.:1::.'.,1.,,,:,:.:"_.'...'.:.~.~,,'~:....~,".,'.;,..',;:,',:,~:';~,.',",'; ,,.;:, }i
t)~,\&;',:'/ ',: !~11 "ViW';;if .,;:,' .,'..~~tli~f~!~
I;~t. Vi" ] d .:?~;; :""',,'1 :.::i~:,~,:i.;:':} ", ",'" ,.'!, ",:
.',~ 'r'I'~ ":!{t..~ I,~'.l '1\ ~[;:: I:J?";, ,,":j ~-~'~":-f;:":'I:'''",',>.~ '\,_., ~ ,~. ( 1\
f):. ~.'.,'''~",1'.,~, . ",j,;t II",., ~ I, ,.,.,-.,~.r:';-- ~?!~, j..;:.,':llr: '. :.-'," ,:',1,0 ;',<'::;;.:,,',',,~.;,'. ' ,',-":',
'1~'LC' ...~\t\ ~!" -:.T~: , ',~j "I;-,'..:~\.,ic,.,t\'~-I~:;':.-J.'~;'__'~ -' '.'Jl7 " :'{J<',(,j.:.." i
-- ,,",,,);" I t:.l;;J" .(-~ ':' -1, I: ;";~ 'i'1JI r"'il.,''\T'.' '< /:'~l' ". ..,\f"b\:. "1:".:..
:.~",'" 11' ',:\",'" If; I I ,~.\..i~~'ri~ll;'''>>Jd~' (l",~' ,.~p, ') ,"
... J - , {( " :_\:'~t:;~::~.\,-:.;.~;<
f.':~,;j\~(11.(~,:T~~f,:,:,,'. '~I ~;j I : "i.',;,"i\f~;';:~', " 'I ".,.~
<~~l;,~~~ ': 1:;'1' ,I, ,,' '," '/!fl'&~';lf,J{'?I\'~i. V:~ d;;
:};~,>I'".,-,: "'>:"ilI.' I i'I' I' ~'. "/ii.'" ,'.' , " " , ,~,
~,"!. >, ');' '~'';1''lF '1'), it '!'''S 'I FliO:' , "/'" ",1;:' --,<,\Ii
1tJ~~~:':,;~;,;~, \1 i /; \..',Yliil: .<!~:j.jO(:'S.:';!':.~~];~,:..,,@!~
,!.,}< i;iliJ;:!;;:;.;1l!t ".... "~i' !"I "';/,' JI;;t ,,:";' r"l".i'!it~fJ(,
Nt~,~>,"'~E:~' t ",: ; Iii ~l!Jl'l~1 '1, ;(; .I't,:,;\ 'W: -~. ";'i
:,'-1"</,,' ",,{',I,.,', ,'1 f" ",.",}I '" , " ',,:" "C(:i:l., I"~:' t.
~,~;"(':'l'(J:.->T:':;-:.::,_;_ _ 1 4~ j 11,;,)111 I.' " ~,I, , )(":rr:J,L,;:>: "I ~
L,"::::'lt&""C,,,,, '5' :\"II:I~' " i ' . ~,,,,,\.\, .~':;;~"';"'.'.":.~..:"':.T'\II";
.,~~, ",k-"~'""" -<. 111 'l"::~ """""r~r_ ~,-, !'1,f;U'" ',.,,,, \ "I)'
....., . ,':' ,'-\~ "'.f" 1) '1t"~1 ~ ' ~It ~," \ , I';:' >$N:j' :\'1t' '{f. ,,1, ".I '_
(,,"-. -_.!5\....-.:~-. { '~',' of'". ,'r'J' ,- W /" ~ 4 If' ~( . ~ 'V'~ l
,;', -"'.'.. ,o;:<~:,,;'~_" _;l_~} :~. '~t'-:"~<. ,~~"'. _,:~ )"-I~;':~-U- ~t'!\,,,,,,
PUDZ,2007,AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
4
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 55 of 124
Throughout the phased development of the site, the applicants would maintain the
minimum 30 percent open space required pursuant to LDC Subsection 4,07,02.G.3, Open
Space Requirements; however, they have committed to ultimately providing 40 percent
open space at build-out, or 6.3 acres, of the site's total area.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND WNING:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Ridge Drive, then single-family homes; zoned Residential Single-Family (RSF-l)
West Street; then single-family homes; zoned RSF-l
Myrtle Road, then single-family homes; zoned RSF-l
Trail Boulevard, Tamiami Trail North (US 41), then single-family homes; zoned
Pelican Bay PUD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The 15,93-acre site lies entirely within the Urban
Residential Subdistrict. The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an
area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities
are concentrated. Urban-designated areas of the county contain a vast almy of residential and
non-residcntial land uscs. The Future Land Use Element's (FLUE) Future Land Use
Designation Description Section 1.a.5 provides that "Urban designated areas will
accommodate community facilities such as churches, group housing uses, cemeteries,
schools and school facilities co-located with other public facilities such as parks, libraries,
and community centers, where feasible and mutually acceptable." As the proposed uses of
the CFPUD are the same as those specifically provided for in the Subdistrict, this CFPUD
may be deemed consistent with the GMP.
GMP Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the sUlTOunding land area.
Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development
Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety; however, would note that in
reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the
compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and sU11'0unding or
nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building
heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic
generation/attraction, etc.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) and has detelmined that the estimated vehicular trips generated by the
proposed rezone would not have an adverse affect on the adjacent roadways, subject to the
church seating restrictions provided in Exhibit F of the CFPUD document (commitment No.
6) that limits the seating to 780 seats within Tract A unless tUl'n lanes servicing the site are
extended 01' a traffic study determines that the existing lanes are adequate to allow the
increase to 1,000 seats. Thus, this petition may be deemed consistcnt with policies 5.1 and
5,2 of the Transportation Element.
PUDZ-2007-AR-/2097, Heaventy CFPUD
5
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 56 of 124
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document supporting land use decisions such
as the subject CFPUD. Staff is required to make a finding of consistency 01' inconsistency
with the overall GMP as part of its recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or
denial of a rezoning petition. Staff believes this petition is consistent with the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM), the FLUE, and all of the applicable provisions of the Transportation
Element. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses may be deemed
consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the GMP,
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon
which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsections
10.02. 13.B.5, v Planning Commission Recommendation. and 1O,03.0S,H,' Planning
Commission Hearing and Report to the Board of County Commissioners, which establish
factual bases to support a recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis
for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the
criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completcd as
separate documents, and have bcen attached to the staff repOlt as Appendices I and 2,
respectively. In addition to these documents, staff offers the following analysis:
Environme11lal Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed this application and has
required the applicants to provide 44 native canopy trees, which would be the minimum
number required to rcplace the cxisting native trees that would be lost on the previously
developed portion of the site; and an additional 0.12 acres of native vegetation to replace the
0.8 acres of existing nativc vegetation on the only undeveloped portion of the site (0,8 acres
X required 15 percent = 0, J 2 acre;). The applicants have proposed to incorporate the 44
native trees into the perimeter buffers adjacent to Wcst Street and Myrtle Road to nl1ther
enhance thc vegetation within thcse areas. They are also proposing to locate the 0.12 acres of
native vegetation in a created preserve area within the dry stOlIDwater managcment arca in
the southern portion of thc site (labeled on the Master Plan as CP for "created preserve"),
subject to jurisdictional agency review and approval. However, Envirolilllental staff has
detelIDined that a re-created preserve within a stonnwater management area, which requires
periodic maintenance, is inconsistent with the preserve management requirements.
Furthermore, the re"crcated preserve is supposed to reproduce the habitat that previously
existed on the site, which was an upland habitat (i,e. pine flatwoods) rather than a wetland.
Finally, preservcs are not to be located within water management areas that are being used
for water quality treatment, such as the one proposed. However, the applicant contends that
there is no prohibition in the LDC for the proposal; and that Environmental staff and the
South Florida Water Management District have even previously approved such re-created
preserves for St. Agncs Catholic Church, St. John the Evangelist, and private commercial
projects like Capital Center. Therefore, they are unwilling to revise their Master Plan to
comply with the Environmental staff's requests, As such, at the behest of Environmental
staff, several conditions of approval relative to the proposed location of the required preserve
in the dry water management area have bcen incorporated (see "Exhibit G, Conditions of
Approval" for a list of these stipulations, which have also becn included in the "Statf
Rccommendation" portion of this report),
PUDZ"2007"AR-/2U97, Heaventy CFPUD
6
Agenda Item No, 8S
March 24, 2009
Page 57 of 124
TranslJOrtation Review: TranspOliation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the
applicants have incotporated most of staff's recommended changes into Exhibit F of the
CFPUD document, such as limiting the combined number of users of the adult and child
day care and pre-K through third grade school to 220, as supported by the TIS, unless a
Conditional Use approval is sought and approved. The only two outstanding issues are the
provision of a bus shelter located adj acent to US 41 (at the stub-out in the median
separating Trail Boulevard and US 41, depicted on the Master Plan); and the provision ofa
single pedestrian link along the length of the western side of the site along Trail Boulevard,
from Ridge Drive northward to Sand Pine Drive (which intersects Trail Boulevard further
north of Ridge Drive) to the existing commercial uses located there in lieu of providing
sidewalks around the site. The applicants are rcfusing to provide the requested sidewalk
because locating it along the west side of Trail Boulevard would displace, they contend,
critical water management as well as street trees installed by the Pine Ridge Civic
Association. FUliher, the applicants assert that neighborhood residents have made it clear
through the Pine Ridge Community Association that they are vehemently opposed to
sidewalks on either the western or the eastern side of Trail Boulevard. Therefore, rather
than providing the requested sidewalk, the applicants have instead acccpted the
Association's suggestion that trees Royal Palms be installed on the west side of the
pavement between Myrtle and Ridge in order to eliminate the singular gap in the
neighborhood's street tree planting program, which has resulted in the location of live oaks
along the entire length of the Trail Boulevard frontage. While staff fully supports
enhancing the tree canopy along Trail Boulevard (and US 41), the applicant is still required
by the LDC to provide payment in lieu for this tract's unbuilt sidewalks, (The applicant has
committed to provide payment in lieu for Tract B's unbuilt sidewalks, as noted in the
CFPUD document.) As such, Transpoliation Planning staff is recommending approval of
the petition, subject to either the provision of a sidewalk linking Ridge Drive and Sand Pine
Drive or payment in lieu for the unbuilt sidewalks along the tracts's multiple roadway
frontages. (It should be noted that Zoning and Land Development Review staff would
prefer payment in lieu for the sidewalks rather than removal of the oaks along Trail
Boulevard.)
Finally, in an effort to increase ridership by facilitating Collier Area Transit's (CAT) use
among the church members and their ancillary facility users, staff is also requesting that the
applicants provide a bus shelter at the existing CAT stop in front of the site on US 41.
However, because the applicants do not believe that there is a rational nexus between their
project and the requested shelter, or that users of the churcbes and their associated uses
would even ride CAT, they are opposed to providing this shelter and have not proffered it
in the Developer's Commitments portion (Exhibit F) of the CFPUD document.
Nevertheless, Transportation Planning staff has detelmined that the project is located
within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) and,
according to the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), would impact US-41 above a de minimis
(one percent) amount. Policy 5.8,b of the Transportation Element of the GMP states that
congestion mitigation payments shall be used to add trip capacity within an impacted
TCMA, road segment and/or to enhance mass transit or other non-automotive
transportation altematives, which add trip capacity within the impact fee district or
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
7
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 58 of 124
adjoining impact fee district. As such, staff has included the requested bus shelter as a
stipulation in Exhibit G (Conditions of Approval) of the CFPUD documents.
Utilitv Review: According to the current Water and Sewer Master Plan update, this project is
located within the Collicr County Water and Sewer District Service Area, Any pOltion of the
project to be developed would be required to comply with Ordinancc 2004-31, as amended.
According to the County's Geographic Information System (GIS), there is an existing 12-
inch water main on Tamiami Trail North and a 20-inch force main on MYltle Road. It should
be noted that the cxisting buildings on the site are on septic and the removal of thcse septic
systems in favor of the public systcm would benefit the area's watcr quality,
Emerzencv Manazement: The Heavenly CFPUD is located in a CAT 3 Hun'icane Surge
Zone, which requires evacuation during many hurricane events. However, because the
project is for community facilities rather than residential units, the Emergency Management
Depaltment has no issues with its approval.
Zoninz Review: As previously stated, the proposed uses are consistent with the Urban
Residential Subdistrict of the GMP, which recommends, among other uses, churches, schools
and school facilities for this area, To achieve compatibility with adjacent uses, the site has
been designed to minimize its impact on the sUlTounding residential Pine Ridge
neighborhood.
As depicted on the Master Plan, the proposed stormwater management lake would be located
along the eastem and a portion of the southern boundary of the site, set back a minimum of
25 fcet, in order to serve as a buffer between the largest and most intense uses on the site and
the residential uses across Wcst Street and Myrtle Road. This design approach has been
repeated along the remaining portion of Myrtle Road and a portion of Ridge Drive, with the
location of the proposed dry storm water management basins abutting these roadway
frontages. It should be noted that although the applicants have optcd to fill the existing 3.3-
acrc Lake Cardinal, which does not cun-enlly meet County development standards for lake
cross-sections, slopes 01' littoral zones, they have cOlmnitted to providing the same capacity
of the lake within thc combined stormwatcr management areas proposcd for the site; or the
capacity required by water management standards for a three-day, 25-year storm event-
whichever of the two is greater, The proposed lake would also accept drainage from the site's
abutting roadside swales, as well as serve as the outfall for the project's dry stormwater
management basins. Although no stormwater management is proposed to be developed on
Tract B, compensating capacity tal' this tract would be provided on Tract A.
The subject site would be buffered from the residential uses sUlTOunding its three sides by
60-foot right-of-way frontages and Type D buffers, as required pursuant to Table 2.4 ofLDC
Subsection 4.06,02.C.4, Table oj B1.!ffer Requirements by Land Use Classification, The 20-
foot width of these buffers would be twice the LDC-required width of 10 feet; and, as
required by the LDC, would consist of a double-staggered hedgerow of shrubs planted at a
height of 24 inches and maintained at three feet 01' better, To enhance the opacity of the site's
transitional screening, 100 percent canopy trees (as opposed to 30 percent palm trees, as
pelmitted by the LOC) would be planted 30 feet on center, Along West Road and Ridge
PUDZ-2007-AR-J2097, Heavenly CFPUD
8
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 59 of 124
Drive within Tract B, the applicant has committed to maintaining a hedgerow height of five
fect (two feet taller than requil'ed) and four feet where abutting parking areas. Tract A would
have a six-foot hedge to screen its parking lot adjacent to West Street; and adjacent to the
proposed stormwater management lake and the dry water management area along West and
Myrtle Road, the applicant has committed to planting ShlUbs five feet high and four feet on
center, to be maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet (instead of the required three feet),
The remaining perimeter buffers that would abut residential uses (i.e. along the two dry
stormwater management basins adjoining Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road) would be per the
Proposed Buffer Yards vs. Required Type D Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.00
Double-staggered; maintained
at 4 feet tall, but 5 feet where
abutting a building
Dou ble-staggered; maintained
at 4 feet tall, but 6 feet on
West
Double-staggered, planted
2 feet tall and maintained at
3 feet tall
Double-staggered natives;
planted at 5 feet and
maintained at 12 feet tall
Only canopy trees, 30 feet on
center
Only Royal Palms, 30 feet on
center
Trees planted 30 feet on center
up to 30 percent of which may
be palms
LDC, but 20 feet in width. All of thesc buffers would be installed concun'ently with the
associated redevelopment within their proximity. The result of such buffers would be a
continuous hedge that, at full height, would provide a transitional screen that significantly
obscures visibility of even the tallest structures proposed for the site from view of the
residential uses, as depicted in the site-line graphic contained in Appendix 4. Furthermore, as
already mentioned in thc Environmental Review p0l1ion of this report, an additional 44 native
trees would be incorporated into the perimeter buffers adjacent to West Street and Myrtle
Road to further diminish the site's visibility from these viewsheds (see Appendix 5 for a
graphic depiction of the typical West Street, lakeside perimeter buffer cross-section).
According to LDC Section 5.03.02.E, Fences and Walls, a four-foot high masonry wall
would be required at the property's three interfaces with sU11"ounding RSF-1-zoned
properties, However, the applicants have requested a deviation from this requirement, as
described in detail in the Deviations section of this rep011 on page 11, Adjacent to Trail
PUDZ-2007-AR-/2097, Heave/lly CFPUD 9
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 60 of 124
Boulevard, a 20-foot wide Type 0 buffer would be provided; however, the applicants are
requesting a deviation to permit all of the required trees in this buffer to be Royal Palms (also
described in the Deviations section of this repoI1). Overall, the applicants have committed to
providing 6.3 acres of open space-comprised of perimeter buffet'S, stOlmwater management
areas, parking lot landscaping, and building foundation plantings-or 40 percent of the site's
total area, which is a 133 percent increase over that required by LDC Subsection 4.07,02,0,
Design Standards,
To mitigate potential impacts from light pole glare on the adjoining residential uses, the
applicants have committed to illuminating the site's pedestrian plaza by 48-inch tall bollards.
Other lighting on the site would be landscape lighting, building fixture, and parking
lot/access lighting, as required by the LDC, Finally, because of the surrounding homeowners
trepidation that the 23 percent increase in the size of the houses of worship (from 750 seats to
ultimately 1,200 scats) and that the 66,400 square feet of additional uses would generate
constant activity seven days a week, the applicants have agreed to limit the hours of
operation on the site, For the child day care and school, the hours would be 6:30 a.m. to 6:30
p,m., Monday through Friday; for the adult day care, from 6:30 a,m, to 8:30 p.m, seven days
a week; and for non-worship use of the facilities, from 7:30 a,m, to 10:30 p,m. seven days a
week.
Proposed CFPUD Development Standards for Principal Structures
vs. the CF Zoning District Development Standards
PUDZ-2001-AR-I2097, Heavenly CFPUD
I 4 acres
1.9 acres
Tract A: 538 feet
Tract B: 236 feet
2,500 sq, ft:.
10,000 sq, ft,
80 feet
1,000 sq, ft. (ground
floor)
The greater of 30 feet 0"
stl'llcture's zoned height
50 feet for expanded
portion
200 feet (except 50 feet
from Trail Boulevard)
The greatcr of 15 feet or 1,
the zoned build in hei ht
n/a
The greater of 15 feet or 1,
sum of buildin hei hts
25 feet
15 feet
15 feet
50% of building
hei ht; but >25 feet
50 feet
35 feet
30 feet
10
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 61 of 124
The project's development standards are contained in Exhibit B of the CFPUO document.
Although there are two separate tables in the exhibit, for the purposes of this report, staff has
combined the information into one table, included on the preceding page. As LDC
Subsection 2.03.05.B, Community Facility (CF) District, allows churches by right, staff has
evaluated the CFPUD's proposed development standards against this dislrict's standards. As
shown in the table, the CFPUO would provide appropriate setbacks from its abutting
roadways. To ensme compatibility with the residential uses that sUlTound it, any new
principal structure built on Tract A would be rcquired to be set back a minimum of 200 feet
from the property boundary along Ridge Drive, West Street and Myrtle Road, which would
exceed the LDC standard for the CF Zoning District by a substantial 175 feet. Existing
principal structures expanded on Tract A, or any ncw principal structures built on Tract B,
would be required to be sct back a minimum of 50 feet and 30 feet, rcspectively; cxcecding
the LDC standard by 25 feet and five feet, respectively.
The maximum zoned height for structures on Tract A would be 50 feet, limited to two-stories
and an actual hcight of 70 feet, cxclusive of stceples. For Tract B, thc maximum zoned height
would be 35 fcct, also limited to two-storics, and an actual height of 55 feet, exclusive of
steeples. On both tracts, appurtenances such as steeples would be pelmitted a maximum
height of 20 feet above the roofline, inclusive of a cross or other religious symbol. Except for
maximum height, the proposed development standards for principal structures far exceed
those of the CF zoning district. However, these standards and enhanced vegetative buffers
have been designed to mitigate potential impacts.
As illustrated in the following table, the CFPUO would require accessory structures to have
front yards and side yards that are the same as the principal structure's (S,P,S.). Maximum zoned
height would be 35 fcet and two stories, with a maximum actual height of 50 feet. Thcse
standards are also consistent with those required by the LOC. '
Proposed Development StaDllards for Accessory Structures vs. LDC Standards
S,P,S.
S.P.S.
Ilia
S,P,S.
S,P,S.
10 feet
35 feet
none
400 sq, ft.
.::;5 percent of lot
area
It should be noted that the applicants originally requested that parking garages, normally
permitted by right as accessory uses, be permitted with a Conditional Use approval provided
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
11
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 62 of 124
that they were limited to two-stories. Because of the glaring incompatibility between an above-
grade parking facility and the neighboring residential uses adjacent to Tract B (the tract
intendcd for the structure), both staff and the surrounding community were opposed to such a
facility. Consequently, the applicant committed to prohibiting parking structures on the site and
limiting the number of parking spaces to 500 on Tract A and 100 on Tract B, which combined is
only 86 spaces more than the minimum required by LOC Subsection 4,05.04,G" Table 17,
Parking Space Requirements, which calls for three spaccs per seven seats (1200/7=171 x 3=
513 parking spaces), However, should the tracts come under the same ownership, the 600
spaces would be allowed to be aggregated for the entire CFPUO,
With the remaining development standards and the stipulations for approval recommended by
staff, it is staffs opinion that the project would remain compatible with the residential uses with
which it has coexisted for the last 40 years, By serving as a buffer between lJS 41 to the west
and the single-family residences to the east, the community facilities proposed for the subject
site would be an appropriate transition between the adjacent six-lane highway and the
residential uses of the Pine Ridge neighborhood.
Deviations: In Exhibit E of the CFPUD document, the petitioners seek approval of six
deviations ft:om the design standards of the LDC and have provided justification to SUPPOlt
these deviations, Staff has analyzed these requests and offers the following analyses and
recommendations:
Deviation 1 seeks relief fi'om LDC Section 6,06,02, Sidewalk and Bike Lane
Requirements; which calls for the provision of sidewalks and bicycle lanes that are
located within the right-of-way.
Proposal: The applicants propose to provide sidewalks witinn the rights-of-way
along Trail Boulevard and along the westem pOltion of Myrtle Road (between Trail
Boulevard and the project's ingress-egress driveway), wInch are tile most likely to
be used by pedestrians in the area. However, as previously noted in the
Transportation Review pOltion of this repOlt, they propose to utilize tile remaining
rights-of-way for the stonnwater management system in an effort to penuit greater
water retention/detention capacity on the site, To compcnsate for the sidewalk
segments not being provided along the remaining frontages, the applicants have
eommittcd to eonsttucting a sidewalk extension across Trail Boulevard, from the
ccntral building campus to US 41, to provide access to a bus stop there, as depicted
on the Master Plan, However, as required by the LOC, they have not committed to
pJ'Oviding payment in lieu for the remaining unbuilt sidewalks; nor have they
committed to constlUcting a sidewalk segmcnt in lieu within the Trail Boulevard
right-of-way between Ridge Drive and Sand Pine Drive (which would COlUlcct to the
existing sidewalk on Sand Pine Drive and the commercial corridor located there), as
requested by TranspOltation Planning staff.
Staff's Determination: Since the sUlTounding single-Camily lots were developed
without sidewalks, any the applicant might construct along the remaining project
frontages would not even be able to connect to existing facilities, As such,
PUD'L-2007-AR-12097. Heavenly CFPUD
12
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 63 of 124
Transportation Planning staff has recommended the alternative noted above, which
the applicants have rejccted due to the neighbors' stated opposition to it. However,
because the applicants have conunitted to installing trees for the neighborhood's
street tree planting program, they have refused to comply with the payment in lieu
(or build in lieu) requirement of the LDC. Since staff can not accept trees as
compensation, swffrecommcnds denial of this deviation request unless proper
payment is made in lieu of the sidewalks; or the applicants construct the requested
compensating sidewalk within the Trail Boulevard right-of-way, from Ridge Drive
to Sand Pine Drive, It should be noted that Zoning and Land Development Review
staff would prefer the former of these two options, as the latter would necessitate the
removal of numerous, well-established live oaks installed along Trail Boulevard as
part of the neighborhood's tree planting program.
Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06,05,N, Natural and Manmade
Bodies of Water, which requires the naturalization of manmade lakes and water
management areas through the use of curvilinear edges.
Proposal: Instead of a physical, curvilinear contour, the applicants propose to
accomplish the intent of this requirement thl'Ough the use of a curvilinear
landscape pattem.
Staff's Determination: A rectilinear edge would increase the pl'Oposed lake's
overall stormwater management capacity, which would benefit the surrounding
area during storm events, FurtheJmore, the lake would not even be visible from
outside the boundaries of the CFPUD due to the enhanced, 12-foot buffers
proposed along the lakefront. Finally, the County Landscape Architcct has
determined that a curvilinear landscape design could effectively achieve a result
similar to that of an actual lake contour, As such, staff supports this deviation.
Deviation 3 seeks rclief from LDC Subsection 4.06.05,D,2.a., Trees and Palms,
which allows no more than 30 percent of the canopy trees within an individual
Type D Buffer to be substituted by palms.
Proposal: The applicants are requesting this deviation to pennit 100 percent palm
trees in the Type D buffer along Trail Boulevard, which parallels US 41, provided
that the overall percentage of palms within the site's required perimeter buffers
does not excecd 30 percent. The objective of this deviation is two-fold: first, to
provide all shade trees along the site's Ridge Drive, West Street and Myrtle Road
frontages to further enhance the vegetative screening from the perspective of the
adjacent single-family homes; and second, to make a grand statement to the
puhlic traveling along US 41 by providing only Royal Palms along Trail
Boulevard, which would complement the existing row of stately Royal Palms that
exist along the northcrn end of Trail Boulevard, running south from Vanderbilt
Beach Road, as well as those planted single-file in the US 4] median, just south
of the subject property.
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
13
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 64 of 124
Staff's Determination: As the proposed deviation would ultimately fulfill the LDC
requirement relative to the total percentage of palms pel1nitted, while at the same
time distributing this elegant native species along the site's Type D, Trail
Boulevard buffer in a vel'y practical and aesthetically pleasing way, staff supports
tlus deviation.
Deviation 4 sccks relicffrom LDC Subscction 5,05,08,E,2.c" Pedestrian Pathway
Minimum Ratios, which requires pedestrian pathway connections from a building
to adjacent road pathways at a ratio of one per each vehicular entrance into a
project; and for drive aisles leading to main entrances to have at least one
walkway adjacent to them.
Proposal: The applicants requcst a reduction from these requirements to provide
six pedestrian walkways, as depicted on the Master Plan: two leading to Trail
Boulevard, one to West Street, one to Myrtle Road and two to Ridge Road, The
applicants' justification for this deviation is that the proposed oumber would be
adequate for the site.
Staff's Determination: Because pedestrian pathways would be provided around
the main campus' plaza, and six pedestrian connections from the sUlTounding
roadways have been provided-which is one more than the total number of
permanent access points on the sitc-staff bclieves the intent of this requirement
would be met and, thcrefore, supports this deviation.
Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4,06,02.A, Buffer Requirements,
which requires landscape buffers between adjacent land uses.
Proposal: The applicants would like to eliminate the buffer required between
Tracts A and B, provided that the equivalent square footage of the eliminated ten-
foot wide buffer, including its tree requirement of I tree per 30 linear feet, is
relocated elsewhere within each of the tracts.
Staff's Determination: Due to the applicants' creation of a church campus with
compatible uses on Tracts A and B, including pedestrian pathway connections,
common access drives and shared parking, coupled with the fact that the plant
material intended for this deleted buffer would merely be redistributed within
other areas of the site, staff supports this deviation.
Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Subscctions 5,03.02,E,2. and 5.03.02.E.4.,
Fences and Walls, which require, respectively, a nomesidential development
located opposite a residentially-zoned district to provide a masomy wall or
prefabricated concrete wall and/or fence; and, said wall and/or fence to be foUl'
feet in height and located a minimum of tlU'ee feet from the rcar of the right-of-
way landscape buffer line,
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
14
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 65 of 124
Proposal: The applicants are proposing to instead provide a six-foot tall, black-
vinyl, chain-link fence situated between double hedgerows within the enhanced
Type D buffers adjacent to the lakcs for safety purposes; and waiving the
requircment along the remaining perimeter boundaries in favor of the modified
buffer described on page eight of this report.
Staff's Determination: Due to the generous buffers provided and the fact that the
proposed land uses would be separated from the adjacent residential uses by a
two-lane local road with a 60-foot right-of-way; and that, when combined with
the associated building setbacks, this separation would be a minimum of 140 feet
for existing buildings and 310 feet for new buildings, staff believes that the
single-family residences would be well protected from potential headlight glare or
any other adverse impacts. Therefore, staff supports this deviation,
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC):
Since the subject site has already been developed (except for 0,8 acres), the applicants wcrc
not required to submit an Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) for tlus petition. As a
result, they were not required to have a healing before the EAC.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
'Ibe applicants duly noticed and held the required NIM at 5:30 on October 5, 2007 at thc
Covenant Presbyterian Church. Approximately 30 peoplc attended, most of whom identified
themselves as residents of Pine Ridge. Also present was County staff, Michael Fernandez, the
agent for the applicants, and three of the agent's staff.
Mr. Fernandez opcned the meeting by explaining that 13 buildings cunently exist on the site,
totaling approximately 50,000 square feet of area, and that the CFI'UD proposed 148,000 feet of
churches and accessory uses. He stated that the maximum actual height of the new churches
would not be much higher than the building heights that currently exist on the site, which he
estimated to be approximately 65 feet. He also noted that substantial buffers would be provided
along the roadways adjacent to the residential uses and that stormwater would be pre-treated in
open space areas beforc being transferred to the newly rclocated lake, per the requirements of
the LDC. Finally, he explained that current access to the south would be closed and that some
access points along the northern boundary would probably also be removed.
Most of the questions posed by the attcndees centered on slonuwater impacts due to the fact that
flooding is an issue in the neighborhood during severe storm events. Residents expressed
concern that the increase in impervious surface area proposed with the project, coupled with the
lake's relocation, would only exacerbate this problem. They also wanted to know where the
stonuwater would outfall. Mr. Fernandez explained that the project's stormwater management
system had been deemed feasible by the County's Engineering and Environmental Services
Department, and that the engineering details of the system would be worked out at the time of
site development plan (SOP), as dictated by protocol. Although he stated that the project would
never solve the Pine Ridge community's long-standing drainage problems associated with old,
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
15
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 66 of 124
collapsed drainage pipes in the neighborhood, he nevertheless promised that the proposed
system would be equal to or bettcr than the stormwater management presently provided by Lake
Cardinal during three-day, 25-year to storm events.
In addition, vehicular impacts caused by cut-through traffic from Goodlettc-Frank Road were
also of conccrn to many residents, especially since the project proposed a school, which would
increase weekday trips. Mr. Fernandez eXplained that, based upon the Transportation Impact
Statement's (TIS) analysis of trips distributed on the surrounding roadway network, 90 pcrcent
of all trips would access the site from US 41, so impacts from cut-through traffic would be
minimal. One resident wanted to know what the maximum student enrollment for the school
would be. Mr. Fernandcz was not able to provide that number. Another resident was concerned
that if the CFPUD were approved it would trigger more PUD developmcnt in the neighborhood,
This rcsident, and many others, were also troubled by the conceptual nature of the project's
Master Plan; and, as such, statcd that it would be prcferable if the applicants applied for a
Conditional Usc due to the fact that the LDC requires more specilicity on the submitted Mastcr
Plan for Conditional Uses than PUDs and, therefore, affords much less flexibility in design after
approval. Mr. Fernandez explained that Conditional Uses expired after three ycars, and that,
because the churches wcre dependcnt upon long-tel111 fundraising and an approximately 25-ycar
development horizon, a Conditional Use would be impractical and cost-prohibitive for his
clients,
Although members of the Pine Ridge Civic Association were in attendance, they and others
from the subdivision had complaincd before the mecting about not being notified of the NIM by
mail (due to the fact that they live outside of the 1,000-foot notification radius prescribed by the
LDC, a distance they believed to be inadequate). Therefore, Mr, Fernandez volunteered to hold
a second NIM in which he would ensure that everyone who wanted to attend would be invited.
He also promised to present the community with a revised Master Plan that was less conceptual
and, therefore, provided more specificity. The NIM ended at approximately 7:30 p,m.
This second NIM was held at 5:30 p,m. on February 13, 2008 at Covenant Presbytcrian Church,
After reiterating the background infOlmation provided at the initial NIM, Mr, Fernandez
presented a new Master Plan, which: incrcased open space on thc site from 30 percent to 40
percent; for new sUuctures on Tract A, proposed 200-foot setbacks from West Street, 1 DO-foot
setbacks from Ridge Drive and Myrtlc Road, and 50-foot setbacks from Traill3oulevard; 25-
foot (instead of IS-foot) Type D perimeter buffers containing stormwater management arcas;
and parking lots designed to accommodate the 1000-scat capacity of the church on the Tract A,
Scveralresidcnts rcmaincd steadfastly opposed to the project because Ml'. Fernandez could not
provide calculations to quantitatively demonstrate how the stormwater management system
would work. Ml'. Femandez again explained how these calculations were not required at the
rezone stage, but would be required at the time of SDP; and that at the time of SDP the project
would be required to provide storlllwater capacity equal to or greater than the existing capacity
afforded by Lake Cardinal due to his clients' commitment to do so in the PUD documents-or
lose some of the project's developable area in order to meet that target. The residents stated that
they still objected to the lake's relocation.
PUDZ.2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFI'UD
16
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 67 of 124
Residents were again concerned about cut-through traffic, especially due to the number of
access points along West Road and Ridge Drive. Mr. Fernandez said that the southermnost
access from Tract A to West Road would be exit only, and that he would commit to closing it if
it became problematic, (TranspOliation Planning staff required this cgress point to be rcmoved
from the Mastcr Plan, which the applicants agreed to do. Therefore, it is no longer ShOWll,) One
resident rcquested that the applicants commit to a maximum church and school population, Mr.
Fernandez said that they would not, and that the square-footage limit on the uses contained in
the CFPUD document would serve to restrict the number of users. Another resident asked that
the applicants commit to the prohibition of parking garages within the development. Mr.
Fernandez said that they would not. The only other issue discussed at the meeting concerned
glare caused by parking lot lighting, Mr. Fernandez said that bollard lighting would be used
throughout the campus pedestrian areas to illuminate the ground only, and LDC-required pole
lighting would be used in the parking lots and at access points, TIle NlM ended at
approximately 7:30 p,m,
A third NIM meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on June 21 at 5:30 p.m. at
Covenant Presbyterian Church. FOliy people from the public attended, as well as Mr.
Fernandez, John Hunter of Covenant Presbyterian Church, a new agent, Rich Y ovanovich
of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, and County staff. Mr.
Y ovanovich presented an overview of the CFPUD rczone request and outlined the items
that had been removed from the design since the prior NlM, which included parking on
West Boulevard and its associated access point, and a fitness center.
After the presentation, residents expressed concerns regarding the excess traffic that would
travel on West Boulevard on Sundays. Mr. Yovanovich stated that law cnforccment would
be present during peak hours, and that there would also be signage placcd at thc exits on
both Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road prohibiting right turns and left turns, rcspectively. One
palticipant asked if another TIS could be prepared to detelmine if the turn lanes on US 41
needed to be extended, to which the applicant agreed. Another rcsident asked if the
applicant would consider planting trees, specifically Royal Palms, in the right-of-way
between Trail Boulevard and US 41. The applicant stated that they would consider this
option if payment in lieu of the requircd sidcwalks were not required from the County
TranspOltation Department. Participants also wanted to know what the hours of operation
for the facilitics would be. With rcgard to the timeline for constroction, the applicant
explained that the initial redcvelopment phase would include the lake's relocation, some
site improvements, their associated buffers, swales and the water management system, and
that it should take about twelve to fOUlteen months from SDP approval and the receipt of
building permits. Participants asked how the project would improve the water management
system. The applicant stated that it would be reviewed and permitted through either the
South Florida Water Management District and/or the County during the SDP review and
permitting process; and that water management would ultimately bc as good as, if not
better than, than it is currently. Some participants expressed fcars that the development
would hurt their propelty values, while others disagreed and stated that improving the site
could only increase property values.
The meeting ended at approximately 7:45 p.m,
Staff has received one letter of support (from the Pelican Bay Foundation), two letters of
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
17
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 68 of 124
objection, and a petition objecting to the proposal that was signed by 48 residents of Pine
Ridge (representing approximately 32 households) at the time of the applicants' first
submittal (see Appendix 6), Staff was also copied on two Ictters from the Architectural
Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions to Covenant Presbyterian Church, both
dated February I, 2008 (see Appendix 7). One of these letters from the committee
contained the March 5, 2008 iteration of the CFPUD document, with suggested deletions
shown in strike-through format and additions inserted in red font. Most of these suggested
changes involved design standards that were ultimately incorporated by the applicants into
the CFPUD document. However, on October 9,2008, the Architectural Control Committee
sent staff a third letter stating that the applicants had still not successfully addl'essed their
concerns. Finally, staff maintained close communication with at least five residents from
the neighborhood who initially expressed opposition to the project via meetings, telephone
calls, and email exchanges; howcver, only two of these residents have continued to express
concems.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-l2097 to the Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of
approval contained in Exhibit H of the Heavenly CFPOD, repeated below, which the applicant
would not incorporate into the CFPUD document as requested by staff:
1. Any plan submitted pursuant to this CFPOD shall be in substantial conformance with
the approved conceptual Master Plan entitled "Exhibit C Master Plan," prepared by
Planning Development Incorporated, consisting of one sheet, dated August 27, 2008,
except as conditioned,
2. Any submitted site development plan (SDP) proposing the expansion of an existing
building shall be accompanied by a survey depicting the actual square footage of the
building and shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will not exceed a 20
percent increase in the building's size.
3. The access points located on West Street and Ridge Drive, depicted on Tract B of the
Master Plan, shall close when this tract redevclops,
4. The submitted SDP shall identify the preserve area setback requirements.
5. At the time of SDP, the applicant shall provide a FLUCFCS map for the vegetated
areas and shall provide a tree count for thc other vegetated areas, such as the pines
around the existing lake.
6, The required re-created preserve shall meet County preserve requirements and: shall
recreate the habitat that previously existed on-site (pine flatwoods) and re-create all
three strata; shall not be located in an area requiring ongoing understory clearance or
periodic maintenance for water management; and shall not be located within water
management areas that are being used for water quality treatment.
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
18
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 69 of 124
7. The last two sentences of the Preserve Note on the Master Plan shall be deleted: "The
created preserve shall be located nOlth of the proposed lake in the general area
identified on the CFPUD master plan. The (CP) may be located within a dry water
management area provided no water quality is provided within the created preserve."
In addition, in Section H of the CFPUD document, the following language shall be
deleted: "The site location for the created preserve is a dry water management area
identified on the CFPUD master plan. TIlis location is subject to jurisdictional agency
rcview and approval."
8. The planting plan shall not be part of the rezone package and will be reviewed at the
time ofSDP.
9, The applicant shall provide, or shall pay the County to provide, a bus shelter at the
existing Collier Area Transit stop located adjacent to US 41, which is located at the
stub-out in the median separating Trail Boulevard and US 41 as depicted on the
Master Plan. If the applicant chooses to build the bus shelter, then this shelter shall be
constructed as part ofthe fIrst development order.
10. In lieu of providing sidewalks around the perimeter of the site, the applicant shall
provide a sidewalk link from Ridge Drive northward to Sand Pine Drive, to connect
the site to the existing commercial uses located nOlth of it. If the BCC determines that
this request is not in the best interest of the community, then by default the applicants
shall be required to comply with the LDC by providing payment in lieu for all
sidewalks along the site's multiple frontages,
APPENDICES:
1. PUD Findings
2, Rczone Findings
3. Project Traffic Distribution, Heavenly Mixed-Use PUD
4. Site Line from West Street
5. Typical West Street Pel'imeter Buffer Cross-Section
6, Letter of Objection, Letter of Support, and Petition of Objection
7. Architectural Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions' Letters and
Recommendations
PUDZ-2007-AR-J2097, Heavenly CFPUD
19
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 70 of 124
PREPARED BY:
~~~
- ~ -----
JO -DAVID OS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
fO/"i/Ol
I DATE
REVIEWED BY:
ero
JDI ASHTON-CICKO
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
/0/23!D'K
DATE
/2 ~U /?p~. -
RA YMO~ V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DRPARTMEN1 OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
10 '/'1',O<;?-
DATE
~Ih./S~ _)fJ/"La~__
SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
--.,.'Co C~. ,..,r--
o EPH K. SCHMITT ADMINISTRATOR
C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
-RVICES DIVISION
~ol.p-"f!or{
I . DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the December 16,2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
/1 ,]
Al / !//\!-/Ju
VV l~(~ Y , VvL-t"
2-11 -OJ--
DATE
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD
20
'.;'."
Agend1lltem No, 8S
March 24,2009,
, Page 71 of 124
Appendix 1
PUD FINDINGS
PETITION PUDA-2007-AR-12097
Heavenly CFPUD
Section 10.02,13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning
Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following
criteria:
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
The purpose of the Urban Residential Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an
area with fewer natUl'al resource constraints and where existing and planned public
facilities are concentrated, The U1'ban-designated areas are intended to accommodate
community facilities such as churches, group housing uses, cemetelies, schools and school
facilities co-located with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community
centers. The proposed CFPUD fulfills the objectives of this designation and will have to be
in accordance with all applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) at the
time of issuance of any development order. In addition, the subject property has been used
for churches and church-related activitics for over 40 years.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed 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.
Evidence of unified control was provided with the application. All an-angements for the
development of the CFPUD are contained within thc PUD documents.
3. Confol'mity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
The project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which
designates the subject property as Urban Residential Subdistrict. The subject petition has
been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP, as explained in
the staff report.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on locatiou of improvemeuts, restrictions on design, and bufferiug
and screening requirements.
Section 4,07.02 of the LDC has specific development requirements for PUD districts to
insure that they are compatible with established uses of the sUITounding neighborhoods. As
noted in the staff report, the subject parcel is located in Urban Residential Subdistrict,
which permits churches and other community facilities. The applicants have committed to
Page I of2
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 72 of 124
providing enhanced buffers adjacent to the surrounding residential uses, which inelude
taller hedgerows and 100 percent canopy trees, as described in the staff repOlt
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Approximately 6.3 acres, or 40 percent of the site's area would be retained as open space,
which is 10 percent greater than that required by LDC Subsection 4.07,02,0.,
Design Standards.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
No capacity issues arc known at this time and the petition has been reviewed by County
TranspOltation staff who has determined that no Level of Service (LOS) standards would
not be adversely affected. Policy 2.3 of the GMP requires the celtification of public
facility availability prior to thc issuance of a final local development order, Because ofthis
provision, the development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency
management regulation,
7. The ability of the subject prope,.ty and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
The utility and roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed
CFPUD and the sU11'ounding development at the time of its build-out.
8. Confonnity with pun regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as
meeting publie purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
Staff has reviewed this petition and found it to be consistent with the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) and the other elements of the GMP. The proposed development
standards are comparable to the development standards of the C-3 zoning district.
Additionally, the proposed buffers and deviations recommended by staff will ensure
compatibility with the adjacent propeltics.
Page 2 01'2
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 73 of 124
REZONE FINDINGS
App(:ndi~ 2
PETITION PUDZ-2007-AR-12097
Heavenly CFPUD
Chapter lO.03.05,G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall
show that the Plmming Commission has studied and considered th(: propos(:d change in relation
to the following, where applicable:
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.
Pages three and four of th(: staff report explain how this petition is consistent with the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP), As stated, the subject
properly is Urban Residential Subdistrict. The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for
higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and
planned public facilities me concentrated. Urban-designated areas of the county contain a
vast array of residential and non-residential land uses. The Future Land Use Element
(FLUE), Section (XV) 1. Urban Dcsignation, (I) (XV), states that Urban-designated areas are
intended to accommodate community facilities such as churches, group housing uscs,
cemeteries, schools and school facilitics co-locatcd with other public facilitics such as parks,
libraries, and community centcrs, where feasible and mutually acceptable, As the proposed
uses of the CFPUD m'C the same as those specifically provided for in the Subdistrict, this
project would be consistent with the GMP,
2. The existing land use pattern;
The subject site is bordered by the RSF-l zoning district to the north, east and south; and by
US 41 to the west. All of the abutting parcels have been developed with single-family homes,
With the proposed development standards and the stipulations for approval recommended by
staff, the project would continue to be compatible with th(: r(:sidential uses with which it has
coexisted for the last 40 years. By providing an appropriate buffer betwcen the single-family
residences surrounding the subject property and US 41 to the west, the institutional uses
proposed for the site would serve as an appropriate transition b(:tween the residential uses of
the Pine Ridge neighborhood and the adjacent six-lane highway.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts;
Approval of this CFPUD would not create an isolated district. As noted above, the
subject site has been developed for decades with churches and church-related uses, These
uses are nOlmally permitted in the RSF zoning district with conditional use approval, as
they are deemcd compatible subject to certain conditions, The proposed CFPUD is also
consistent with the FLUE of the GMP, as notcd above.
Page J of4
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 74 of 124
4. Whether existing district boundaries arc illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
The subject property was created by the applicants' assemblage of available parcels in the
area. The location map on page two of the staff report highlights the boondary of the
subject parcel. As shown, the boundaries of the CFPUD are logically drawn,
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
rezoning necessary.
The proposed CFPUD is not obligatory at this location. However, the request is
reasonable because the property owners are unable to rcdevelop thcir facilities without a
land use action on their property since the RSF -1 zoning district no longer allows
churches without at least Conditional Use approval; otherwise, the properties remain
legally non-conforming.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
The proposed CFPUD would not adversely affect the living conditions in the
neighborhood. The proposed uses for the property would be similar to that already
existing on the site; and with the conditions of approval recommended by staff, any
adverse impacts would be mitigated.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively incl'ease traffic congestion
or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because
of peak ,'olumes or projected types of vehicular trafflc, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The applicant submitted the required TIS, and Transportation Planning has reviewed the
application. Subject to the conditions of approval and the developer commitments, the
projcct will not crcate any advcrse traffic impacts,
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Thc proposed change would not create drainage 01' sUlface water problems, as the water
management system would be designed to prevent drainage problems on the site. As noted in
the staff report, the applicants have committed to providing the same capacity of Lake
Cardinal within the combined stormwatcr management areas proposed for the site; 01' the
capacity required by water management standards for a three-day, 25-year storm event--
whichever of the two is greater. Although no stOlmwater management is proposed to be
developed on Tract B, additional capacity on Tract A would be provided to compensate for it.
Furthermore, the proposed lakes would accept additional drainage from the site's abutting
roadside swales, as well as serve as the outfall for the project's dry stormwater management
basins.
Page 2 of4
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 75 of 124
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
The proposed change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties in terms of
light and air.
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. Propelty valuation is affected by a host of factors
including zoning; however zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since value
determination is driven by the market. There is no guarantee that the project will be
marketed in a ma1mer 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;
The proposed uses are existing, and all adjoining properties have already been developed.
Therefore, the proposal would 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;
As stated, the proposed amendment complies with the Urban Residential Subdistrict
designation of the GMP. FurthelIDore, land use applications are subject to a public
hearing process to insure that they do not constitute a grant of special privilege or arc
inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity in which thcy are situated.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property caunot be used in
accordance with existing zoning;
There are no substantial reasons why the propelty could not be used in accordance with
existing zoning. However, as legally non-confotnling uses, without a land use action they
are unable to make any sitc alterations that would increase their size,
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County;
The proposed amendment conforms to the goals and objectives of the GMP and is
compatible with the surrounding property, Howevcr, even though staff believes the size
of the project has been mitigated through the design standards, such as 200-foot setbacks,
and enhanced vegetative buffers, area residents have expressed concerns about the
project's scale.
Page 3 of4
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 76 of 124
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
There are many sites that are already zoned to accommodate the proposed development;
however this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a
rezoning decision, The proposed CFPUD was reviewed and deemed compliant with the
GMP and the LOC. Furthcrmore, the churches havc been opcrating on the site for
approximatcly 40 years.
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 developmcnt would rcquirc some site alteration and the subject site would have to
cleared to execute the proposed development plan,
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
The proposed CFPUO petition would not have an adverse impact on public facilities or
servi ces,
Page 4 of4
N
<'l
;!;
~
u.
+
50%
...
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 77 of 124
~
.".
u)
::i
t
40%
..
1:. TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS.INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
01
0::
~I
.-J
~1
-'
~I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
I~
.-J
I~
I-
1 if)
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
l___ ..__.. _.,..._, ___on _._.._ _, ...... __..._ _...J
LEGEND
~20%+ PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
MYRTLE ROAD
-+ 5%......
PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
HEAVENLY MIXED USE PUD
s
IN,T,S.I
. .....
':.
..' '
Appelldi~ 3';..
CO"'"
",ON
O~
ON....
Z .0
E~f2
QU:: OJ
=20)
ro",ro
-g;Zo...
OJ
OJ
<{
, I
~~IW"U'13loMJ
--.-
UOSJ-W an A'l/(lIo
e!::lD BS:!lIQPl(<f' 111 'Hom an
:tS J,$3M 1fOO.l 3Nn,,-UJ
~/'__wt
~~"'.-
and A.7N:iAV8H
~
- .. ...~-...... G
",:~=~~~~cr~~ t~
gltatllOWJ.M5'Cl/lJ1fJW."t.iWWlIJw,JtJNJ'I1HI'L'I'ltWCIJ~1WIJ ; ~
CJ31'tfl1OdUO:JNf1Ni1ad013A~af)NJNN1fld << :::;
--
I
~
l
I
~I .~~
~~ If
lwll! '
\
"""...
\ I ~
.
\1 '.
~"""n1;Y
\- ~ ~
-..--
\ to
~
\ ~ ~
II ~ f
'; u.
\\ ~ !
\\ !!! ~
HI ~
.
\\
Ie.
\\ i fi ;
\\ ~ I
~ z
\ k 0
f-
\ 0
w>-
If)..J
\ Z
UO
-(I)
\ Iw
0..(1)
<(0
\ o::~
0=>
0-
3UI\'~ull~ ;ii5
18V~ ::::>-
~ f-tl
o..=>
, WU
, oqJ
, ZD
~ . 00::
~I 012
n
.0
Appendix 4
~ "
~ \
/ \ .
/
( \
I \
I \
r fD
I .
\
\ I .
\ I ~~
\ I ~i
"- I
, I IL I
, -,
~_ --1 ~I
~
.
11""W,",''''''' J
"""""'" loor-
'(I0~ - (lJl.or~'lIW"
~S'lIUOOll..r NI.1HOZSIIl un
OU:xilS f/rnll:J 'lYru..I33HOO
. ~.
In
;g
fJ
'"
~
,-
-,,-
~E<E::~:::_~
.........,
" \
// \
( \
I \
I \
I
(
\
\
\
\
"-
,
~
'~_J
_~~"l..q
rum=- HOt
_VII_ ~I/"
(Jl)d .t. 7N:M Y::iJIf
~-
~
I
i
I
I.
..
i'
!1.111
Ill"
Ilil~
lh~!1
ll~1!
/
(
I
I
f _-
~:etJ t~~~:::::..._-
\ ------7-'
\ I
\ I
"- I
" I
~_-1
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 79 of 124
~1IO'lII'_"~______
com:l'anrcnJ'f:JU'(JI"BlIlI'WVll'fI'mIRVj)Wlt
fj_~__r"'-'l _ _...__,._
aJ;>>JJHfJII1ilo'\':l1U'WfrRNWJ1ImJ~tiW1l'.fM;lO~
03JI'!/OdUOOHI JN3I/J01!WKJ SNWNV'kI
l
'I
i ~
......_loII"""'i'N.. I
~
lIlI'&l#.1
,
"
,
~ .n"'_~"_
~.-
,/
,
'lllr"_
-.-
J~""""'''_
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 80 of 124
, I
Appendix 6
Joe & Teresa Bandy
603 West Street
Naples, FL 34108
October 31,2007
,i'
Mic)Jael R. Fernandez, AlCP President ~{#i,jiJ',i'
5133 Castello Drive, Suite 2,
Naples, FL 34103
RE: Proposed Heavenly Mixed Use MPUD Rezone
6926 Trail Boulevard
Neighborhood lnfbrmatlon Meeting (N1M)
PDI PN: 07,01007
Rezoning from Residential Single Family (RSF) to Heavenly Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD)
Dear Mr. Fernandez:
ltu-esponse to your letter dated October 25, 2007, we llre very much eoncerned with yow
)'roposal Rezoning PIM on the above captioned property owned lly the Ohureh G.,oup.
We ate fearful of any ehange to our quality of life, which includes increase in auto traffiQ, people
tr!lffic, noise, ete,
we are also concerned about our property depreciating and becoming less valuable.
':,'hen, there are the evening traffie bright lightn, mUBie, singing ,andlioise.
"Ve are paying a very large tax bill due to the fact of where we live, We oppose thc chauge.
;ry;:.re~1 ~
1f~-AJ (;5:~~~
'oe& Teresa Bandy 7
'03 West Street
: japle~, FI, 34108
',c: Linda BedtelyolJ
Community Plonning Coordinator
Community Development & Envil'onmental Services Administration
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
(239)213-294,8 I FlIx: (239)403-2395 ]indabccltelvonilj)colliergov,l1ct
':/Iplesrezaning
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 81 of 124
Page I of2
~. .1ssJohndavid
~_. ., r......_._._._...~__, -...~-~...._... . ..- _._~-'~._~...-".~ -._........... .".._,....~.._...,........,.__.~..h.._._'...~ ~ _.__~.,.. .....'_.~"_.__..'u.,.._._"~,__....._~._.......'..........._
F; DI11: Terri Fernandez [pdl(ff@aol,coml
S,nt: Tuesday, October 30,200711;16 AM
To: MossJohndavid
C,: PDIMRF@aol.com; 'Sandra Guajardo'
.. '''joct: Heavenly MPUD - AR 12097
0.,,' morning, John David;
Wb "re looking forward to the NIM for this project on Monday, November 5, 2007 at 5;30 p,m, See you then,
1"0' '!our records, please see the emall chain below from Lisa Bauer of the Pelioan Bay Foundation.
SI"" : "celved our letter relative to the NIM for Heavenly MPUD and discussed it wl(h the Pelican Bay President.
At " .','J will see from her email, they have no Issues with our zoning change.
1'h': :,)111 you might want to include tills information In your project file. Thanks for your time and see you next
".,Vf,
I h "~ great day,
1; '3,
s'. 'Iy,
Tv fIWv\-cw\-awb'
:63 -6934
r ',IT': Lisa Bauer [mallto:ibauer@pellcanbay.org]
~' Tuesday, October 30, 2007 9:54 AM
" -rl Fernandez
~ :t: RE: 6926 Trail Boulevard
t-I,
.,-: lnk you for your email.lreviewedthelnformatlonandspokewiththe.Pellcan Bay President and he said we
. issues with the zoning change,
l, : Terri Fernandez [mallto:pditff@aol.com]
S ,.; Monday, October 2.9, 2.007 8~48 AM
. l':~ Bauer
:1~Rf@ilol,comi 'Sandra Guajardo'
t, :t; 6926 Trail Boulevard
(. norning, Ms, Bauer;
you for your emalllnquiry. For your use and ease of reference, aUached please lind a localion map for
,nt Presbyterian Church, which Is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, Trail Boulevard runs parallel and
"110 Tamlami Trail North on the east side, Ills the IDeation of the existing church facilities.
)\lr receipt and review, should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not
, to contact ou,' ollice.
'1007
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 82 of 124
PETITION FOR THE DENIAL REZONING KNOWN AS "IlEA VENL Y MPUD"
We, the property owners, of the Pine Ridge Residential area oppose the proposed
rezoning and proposed construction of the Prcsbyterian Church project.
Pine Ridge is a W1ique and special neighborhood. By allowing the rezoning and proposed
project known as "Heavenly MPUD" would increase the traffic and noisc on West Street,
West Pine, Ridge Drive, MYltle Street and man)' other Pine Ridge streets.
Stonn water ovcrflow from the proposed lake could flood low situated properties. We
are dependent on wells fo1' our water supply, COlIunon sense tells us that moving the
existing lake would tremendously disturb the undergrmmd water quality to the entire
area, Also, the runoff of the polluted surface water from the huge parking area ill the lake
would create a cesspool, seeping into the wells and poison our water. All this, besides
other objections would destroy our unique Pinc Ridge neighborhood. Therefore, we wish
that this re7.oning be denied.
-AL~;L~,
, - 'i't:=f1s4\t.2L____
"' , --p'
L., ~ __t.-.-(~-='A"'--'--
. - J.LI.dLjral jU7r- IlL
~~ d\ &o.-II",~ 7 b (Co '11'0,11 B /vcL '.
l L~i~~~.~Lii~'-L-fL--3o (~_ ~./, J!.=--~.C.
CP Il~1.Ylct_~< f o-Jjj J (MeT j;Z:-~ /X~(
<v~/ j~, / ~#,dP /
.,-. ~k / '<~",-,iir;C:- (CLeM 'f,j;.i<'./e.y~-z;(,,'
_floct :i~~~';~;l~__ (/.,(:'7 I.(/<::J'/ r h-e<.!..J..
~#ir ~~~ i<~~:I:~
"'~/ c.i.-t/
PJ ,;;Z y.~ ~ 0 UL--
{,;;2Y ~l'd~ ))I?
'70 ~>:, G, yqL v/-t '- ~,-u1
I5lvuL. .
:76 ~ )I-rr~ I
..---..---
c>o
17
(!.) dU
(A/ 'c~ f- X--I
l'\J ~-zXi- '::l
v---
&~17 GVes;'f- _ !.if,
h6t jjJ{?~ ~
(' 1j f Cm.:zOj (.? 1)
<-------
L___~~
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 83 of 124
,.-'-
, I ' ~' )
'( CL.ll' .J/.I~.J ..l M....y l!?tJ'"?~L..A(
. I I .
&>9.'7' f'A-A/I'.# /Go
.....=;::::::_::2~?6-/ ?"'''~~ 4> 3)' (!A,('H'/l ~
,./.:Mn...r;t:. ~m.)!ic-' h7t? UJo4:t' Sf:
~' ~ll"- (is< ,"",,,- ':tJ
',~~-e.. /~, ,:}(!/~}tIAe 6 Cf3 !1Je,5t ,c;-f'/
~~S1tf ~~~~~: ~o
._ ~i.~~~U!~1- S '{ '-f ~U8$-V f-M~
'..~l~,,~~1jr'P'1w
fitl; "->'--: (,. I) iiv ;J!,9} .5" TJ/.f (. J,
, ,,_---'\C'- 0 I " S',) C/ f A 1",/1, rJ M(_('
_~ <~U i\-A- \ '-.CL .\(6'\ ", {(/V (, Lrl_
f/ _ ,::!,e.lL \~oJ~~'v~yl_- 5;2({ ~J-e;\.\- '\1o.....c.,C
: \11;L( [vYLVI" t6 -~ G);,/plJf,
/ /1
,__v':2~ fJ~~cd?. ':5 OJ..Q.c. i,
(~~_ l--_ efc <74 '1 (2-,-,,-Q..y!_ IR _
.._5 .__\"'. '- 6 5'1 ;LT[<.? '< \ ~ ~ ~
_ C;4c{& [[yl-/l-plr/ [)
Nhzvfv bkavl ~ J d1_~ tyl~
CJ rY\~f'v ~r
, =- '/ww1: I/~~flt)
~,~I.fJ<;; j~~
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 84 of 124
t-f Z, 3 V ;n-r ~ 7,
i-J3 Ue;sf 3,
07/ ?u~/ PllJCe
-
/ ( r ( I (
~A ~ft;
, - - -', (tJ{ ~ , ,e _
/~Z" I , ' - '. 3,sOI"((kC~)WUl;rJ{)D\L flcpr6 ~l.1JoB
_ " ~~~ p ~I/o~ 22/ Fr!!!o!?d '
~ufrL '.r_ ))) IU;d, -4---
Architectural Contl'ol Committee
of Pine Ridge Subdivisions
Collier County, Florida
300 Fifth Avenue Somh, Sult.217
Nopl.s, Florid. 34102
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page,85,of 124-:,:",
.' .' ..:....: -' :" .~.. .,',,'~:),';t~;
Appcndii:,/':-,\" .. , ,.,,' ".,'
'..' ,".,' '-"" '..,
. '~. .~..' .", ,
:~~<i!.;: ~: "::;I,.~.;~:\;.~~..;:~~'r..
r't"r ~ ~
t;::;f:p;i
rlf?
OJ. Febl1lary 2008
Steven J. Brisson, AlA
Chailman,
Architectural Contl'Ol Committee orPine Ridge Subdivi.ions in Collier County, Florida
300 5th Ave. South Suite 217
Naples, FL 341 02
~~c
4,0.(> ~/V~
<'Ototlt, I $' <I' D
G /)~ tiP&'
"-if?
r4f~
'l'l'
Covenant Presbyterian ChUI'ch
6926 Trail Blvd,
Naples, FL 34108
RE: "Heavenly Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)"
To Whom It May Concc\'Jl:
The Pine Ridge Architcctural Control Committee has met on several occasions with Mr. Michael Fel1landez
representing the Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples Inc, and Mission Possible Ministries, Inc. to review
and discuss the "Heavenly Mixcd Usc Planned Unit Development (Ml'UD)" document.
The use of Block "0" of Pine Ridge Extension for "churches and affiliated uses" is long established. This
committee's intention is to work to assure that the use Block "0" is not subverted to uses not originally
intended by the "Decl'I'ation of Covenants and Restrictions for Pine Ridge Extension, Collier Community,
Florida as amend and filed, or, Book 66, Page 3/8 at the Collier County Records,
The PRACC has reviewed the PUD document dated March 5, 2008. The enclosed mal'k-up of that document
contains the Committee's specific review.
Please accept the comments of the PRACC.
Stevell J. Brisson, AlA
Chairman,
Architectural Control Committce of Pine Ridge Subdivisions in Collier County, Florida
Page I on
Encl. Heavenly Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)
Cc:
Clifford f-L Schneider, PRACC l'vfember
Thomas R. Peek, PRA CC Member
Mission Possible Minisu'ics,lnc
Joe Sclunitt, Collier County Director ofCommnl1ity
Development and Environmental Serv;ees
JolmDavid Moss, Principal Plannel', Collier County
George Buonocore, President Pille Ridge Civic Association
COlll1ty Conunissioner Frank Halas. District 2
County Commissionel' Jim Colleta, Disb'ict 5
County Commissioner Fred W. Coyle, District 4
Connty Commissioner Domla Fiala, District 1
County Commissioner Tom Honnulg, District 3
Michael Fernandez
Fage 2 of2
Agenda Item No, 88
March 24, 2009
Page 86 of 124
wi enclosure
wi enclosure
wi enclosnre
wi enclosure
wi enclosure
wi enclosure
w/o enclosill'C
w/o enclosure
wlo enclosure
wlo enclosure
wlo enolosute
wi enclosure
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 87 of 124
Architectural Control Committee
of Pine Ridge Subdivisions
Collier County, Florida
300 fiUb A vellue SOl\lb, Suile 217
Naple., Florida 34102
J~-2/
~J.".-
r(J- -
(/:)~
.---'
.-----
01. February 2008
Steven J. Brisson, AIA
Chairman,
Architectural Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions in Collier Counly, Florida
300 5th Ave, South Suite 217
Naples, FL 34102
Covenant Presbyterian Church
6926 Trail Blvd.
Naples, FL 34108
RE: Heavenly MPUD
Dear Sir:
The Pine Ridge Archilectural Control Committee has been infonnad that Covenant Presbyterian Church has
filed a petition with Collicr COUllty to rezone the properties in Block "0" of Pine Ridge Extension from
Residential Sillgle Family (RS!'-I) to PUD,
It is our under anding-that-tlre-petitimri.rli-led-u e Collier County Recol'ds as follows:
"PUDZ-2007-AR-12097 (JDM) Augllst 20,2007
, lrufNlljl" as, nc. and Mission Possible Minisll'ies, Ine, represented by Michael
R, Fernandcz, AICP ofPlntming Development, IllC" al'e requesting a rezone from tho RSF-I Zoning District to
the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning Distl'ict for a project to be known as Heavenly
MPUD. The approximately 15,93-acre site is proposed to pennit existing churches; associated schools, day care
facilities and other related accessory uses. The subject site is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the
entire block formed by Trail Boulevard, Ridge Drive, Myrtle Road and West Stl'eet in Section 3, Township 49,
Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida."
'Pine Ridge', is comprised of three platted subdivisions, aUrccorded in tile Records of Collier County, Florida along
with oach plat's respective Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions lIS follows:
RECEIVED
FEB () 6 Z008
ZONING DEPARTMENT
Page 1 ef3
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 88 of 124
Pine Ridge Subdivision, Plat,
Pine Ridge Subdivision, Covenal1ts
Pine Ridge Subdiv ision. Covenal1ts Modiftcation
Pine Ridge Extension Suhdivislon, Plat,
Pine Ridge Extension Subdivision, Covenants
Pine Ridge Extension Subdivisiou, Covenants ModifieatiOll
Pine Ridge Second Extension Subdivision, Plat,
Pine Ridge Second Extension Subdivision, Covenants,
Plat Book 3, Page 24
need Book 34, Page 207
OR Book Page 66, Page 318
Plat Book 3, Page 51
OR Boola, Page 427
OR Book 66, Page 818
Plat Book 10, Page 86
OR Book 409, Page 540
Each of the tlnee Pine Ridge subdivisions has separate recorded Covenants and Restrictions (deed restrictions).
The restrictions all rcference one common Pine Ridge Architectural Control Committee. The names and
addresses of the Architectural Contml COllUnittee members me recorded in the Public Records of Collier
County ,
The Pine Ridge deed resb'ictions require that all propoRed impmvements be submitted to the Architectural Contl'Ol
Committee beforo Conslnlction, Please note that the setbacks and restrictions contained in the Pine Ridge Extemion
Covenants and Restrictions vmy from that of the Collier County land development code, Either doewnents may be
more resb'ictive and the most resb'ictivc eritel'ia lUles,
The platted lots in Block "0" ofthe Pine Ridge E<tension wcre originally designated for single.family homes per the
Covenants mId Restrictions. On or about Jlme21, 1960, tho Covcnants lUld Restrictions of Pine Ridge Extension were
modified by the Collier Development Corporation to "allow the ccnstruction of churches !\lid other affiliated uses~.
SUlgle-fumily homes are permitted Ul Block "0" per the deed restrictions, The COllnty Zoning is RSF-l.
To date, 110 submission bas been made by your organization to tbe PRACe.
We have read some PTID submittal information for your application, The doclunents that we have seen lU'e vague aIld
do not addrcss specific land uses, setbacks, building heights, number of building stories, storm water management,
wastewater b'eatmenl/disposal, site lighting, bufferitlg. landscaping, and unpaotq on neighborlllg properties. TIle
PRACC is conce('(\ed tltat you may be planning to construct improvcments that will not comply with the Covenants
and Restrictions, Plcase submit a detniled site plan and conceptual architectural drawings that specifically describe
what you ullcnd to construct.
Please furnish the PRACC with thrce copies of all of the POO application documents submitted to date, along with
allY modifications, Also please fumish tho PRACC with .11 subsequent modifications and correspondence relative to
YOUI' PUD application,
Page 2 of3
._-~ ---
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 89 of 124
TIle modifications that yon propose to your land aud uses may require a formal modification to the Covenants IUld
fu>stl'ictions of Pine Ridge Extension, TIle maximum number of buildillg stories ill Pille Ridge Extension is two. You
are proposing to construct improvemeuts in the water area of the existing Lake Cardillal, The Covenants prohibit the
construction of any build ing or sUlIcmre over the water except for a small dock. The location of Lake Cardinal i9
designated on the plat. Modification of the Covenants requires approval of a majority of then owners of the lot9 in
PUle Ridge Extension.
Please respond indicating how you pllUl to proceed with n submission to the PRACC.
Stev J. Brisson, AIA
Chaimlan,
Architecturnl Control ConUllittee of Pine Rldge Subdivisions in Collier County, Florida
Enel. Covenants and Restrictions
Co:
Clifford H, Schneider, PRACe Member
Thomas R. Peek, PRACC Membel'
Mission Possible Millistrles, luc
~chmitt, Collier C01lllty Director of Community
Development and Environmellla I Services
George Buonocore, President Pine Wdge Civic A9sociation
County Commissioner Frank Halas, District 2
County Conmlissioner Jim Colleta, District 5
COWlty Commissioner Fred W, Coyle, Disu'ict 4
County Commissioner Donna Finla, Disu'ict I
County Commissioncr Tom Helming, District 3
Michael Femandez
Page 3 of3
61h-
m~~ _ .__-'~, ~\.....-.
w/o enclosure
wlo enclosure
wi enclosure
wlo enclosure
w/enclosure
wlo enclosme
wlo cnclosure
wlo enclosure
w/o cnclosure
wlo enclosure
w/enclc9urc
-'
,-
Agenda Item No, 88
March 24, 2009
Page 90 of 124
Joe & Teresa Bandy
603 West Street
Naples, FL 341 OS (Cell:50S-292- 7446)
RECEIVED
SEP 2 ~ 2008
ZONING DEPARiMENT
September 1S, 2000S-
Mr. John David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
2S00 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RE: Proiect--HcavenIv MPUD PUDZ-2007-AR-12097
Dear Mr. Moss:
We are not able to attend the meeting. We strongly oppose to the above captioned project based on several
important issues:
1. Traffic at the intersection of West Street and Ridge Olive. Cars are not able to exit on 41 going south.
The crossover from Ridge Drive is very dangerous now, without the future increase in traffic,
2, PARKING LOT LIGHTS on Ridge Drive, Car headlights and noise will also be very disputed to our
RESIDENTIAL neighborhood, There should be NO ENTRANCE/EXITS from Ridge Drive. Car headlights
will shoot into our Master Bedroom windows at night creating nuisance, disrupt and interfering with our sleep.
We are retired and do not appreciate this disturbance with our daily Jiving.
3. The planned development is a RESIDENTIAL area and this project will DECREASE our properly value
tremendously.
4 ALL TRAFFIC should ENTER and EXIT from Trail Boulevard (Service Road) with no access to Ridge
Drive or West Street.
5 The length of construction will create loud and atmoying noises from the equipment, vehicles, etc. which
will disrupt our daily life for several years. This is not fair! We bought into Pine Ridge because it was a
DESIREABLE, RESIDENTIAL, QUIET, NEIGHBORHOOD and now it will be turned into a CITY..
We oppose tills project!
SincerelY'~/ ,&~"t ()
(- -J',€.-A-fA--I:U 4-~
Joe and T ' esa Bandy
Enc. Petition for the denial re oning known1 "Heavenly MPUD" signed by residents and hand delivered to
you pl'eviously.
cc: Frank Halas, Board of County Commissioners, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL 34112
cc: Collier County Planning Commission, Attn: Chairman, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112
Pine Ridge <<:Zl111il1g
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 91 of 124
Architectural Control Committee
of Pine Ridge Subdivisions
Collier County, Florida
300 Fillh ,~venue South, SIlite 217
Naples, Florida 34102
~-'
/
".'~ .
,/"
9-0ct-200B
Mr. John David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Director of Community
Development and Envin:JI'lmental Services
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RE: Covenant Presbyterian Church's petition for zoning change
Dear Mr, Moss,
The Pine Ridge Architectural Controi Committee (PRACC) realizes and understands that Covenant
Presbyterian Churoh has filed a petition with Collier County to rezone the properties in Block "0" of
Pine Ridge Extension from Residential Single Family (RSF-1) to PUD. While we have been involved in
the review of numerous versions of the PUD, none have successfully addressed our concerns stated
in our original correspondence dated 1-Feb-08 and attached herein, nor have we been able to
review formal architectural submittals,
The PRACC has architectural oversight' obligations over all proposed construction through Pine
Ridge deed restrictions, based upon need, form, structure, usage and intent. We do support the
specific and iimited land use granted and defined in the original Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions for Pine Ridge Extension, under which the Church has been operating, (RSF-1),
However, we do not support nor approve the zoning re-definition, in the Church's petition, of said
land to PUD.
Sincereiy,
Steven J, Brisson, AlA
Chairman, Pine Ridge Architectural Control Committee
Clifford H. Schneider, PRACC Member
Thomas R. Peek, PRACC Member
Encl: Letter dated 01-Feb-2008
Cc;
Clifford H. Schneider, PRACC Member
Thomas R, Peek, PRACC Member
George Buonocore, President Pine Ridge Civic Association
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 92 of 124
AGENDA ITEM 9.A
Co~... County
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
DATE:
DECEMBER 18, 2008
RE:
PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, HEA VENL Y COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD)
This item was most recently scheduled for the Collier County Planning Commission's (CCPC)
December 4, 2008 public hearing; however, due to an advertising error, it was continued to the
CCPC's January 15,2009 public hearing date.
It was the applicants' intention to utilize the additional six weeks gained from the continuance to '
resolve outstanding issues with the surrounding community, However, as of the writing of this
supplemental staff l'epOli, staff has not yet rcceived a revised version of the CFPUD document
reflecting any changes. Nevertheless, the applicant's newly appointed agent, Richard Yovanavich,
has asstU'ed staff that all of the proposed changes wiIl result in a reduction of impacts on the
sUlTOunding properties, According to Ml', Y ovanavich, the maximtUll permitted heights proposed
in the most recent iteration ofthe CFPUD document (submitted to staff for review on October 14,
2008) would be further reduced; one access point to the site would have its hours of operation
limited; an elevation depicting the massing of the chmch proposed for constluction on Tract A
would be submitted; and other such modifications will be proposed. Because all of the changes
would be reductions in terms of their impact, another Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)
was not required of the applicants; and Mr, Y ovanovich was granted permission from the CCPC
Chaitman to present the proposed revisions to the CFPUD document on the floor at the public
hearing.
Because Zoning and Land Development Review staff was preparing this supplemental staff
repmi, Environmental Services staff requested that a revised summary of their review be
submitted to the ccpe. It is Environmental Services staffs hope that the following summary
more clearly characterizes their position on the subject petition:
The retained vegetatioll retention requirement was evaluated separately for the
developed and undeveloped portions, The developed portion of the site has only
retained trees. To meet native vegetation retention requirements on the developed
portion of the site, a minimum of 44 native canopy trees shall be planted to replace
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 93 of 124
the existing native trees that will be removed from this portion of the pun
Regarding the undeveloped portion of the site, 0,8 acres of native vegetation existed
on the site. A minimum of 0.12 acres of native vegetation (0,8 acres X required 1.5
percent = 0,12 acres) is required in addition to the 44 native canopy trees,
The applicants have proposed to incorporate the 44 native trees into the perimeter
buffers adjacent to West Street and Myrtle Road to further enhance the vegetation
within these areas. They are also proposing to recreate the 0.12 acres of native
vegetation in a dry stormwater management area in the western portion of the site
(labeled on the Master Plan as CP for "created preserve "), However, South Florida
Water Management District allows only minimal plantings with maintenance
requirements including mowing within dry storm water management areas. These
plantings are not consistent with either recreated preserve planting or preserve
management plan requirements in the LDC. The 0.12 acre of preserve for this site
must be "ecreated due to a violation of the Exotic Vegetation Removal Permit issued
for the undeveloped lot. Native understOlY was mechanically removed Fom this
parcel and this removal further damaged the root zones of the slash pines on site
which contributed to the destruction of the canopy, Furthermore, section 10,02,06 E
of the LDC requires that mitigation for permit violations recreate the vegetative
community that was lost, This section requires the mitigation to restore the habitat
that previously existed on the site, which was an upland habitat (i,e, pinejlatwoods)
rather than a wetland, Finally, GMP CCME 6.1.1 (5) allows only for receipt of
treated stormwater and the site plan as currently shown would result in untreated
stormwater being discharged into the created presen'e. The applicant conten.ds that
there is no prohibition in the LDC for the proposal an.d therefore has shown the
recreated preserve within the my storm water management area on the Mastel' Plan;
and that such re-created preserves have been previously approved for St. Agnes
Catholic Church, St. John the Evangelist, and private commercial projects like
Capital Center, However, the construction plans for the two churches referenced
above have required County preserves separate from water management areas. The
Capital Center plan was permitted as part of a Settlement Agreement and L~ not a
valid comparison to this project, As such, in order for the PUD to be consistent with
GMP and LDC requirements for retained ,native vegetation , several conditions of
approval relative to the proposed requi>'ed preserve haw been incorporated (see
"Exhibit G, Conditions of Approval" for a list afthese stipulations, which have also
been included in the "Staff Recommendation" portion of this report).
Assuming the proposed changes presented at the hearing do result in a reduction of impacts on the
sUlTounding properties as purported, the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
staffs recommendation remains the same, as noted in the previous staff report dated November 6,
2008. As such, staffrec.ommends that the eepe forward PUDZ-2007-AR-12097 to the Board of
County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to stipulations contained in
the Exhibit H, dated October 7, 2008, which are attached to the ordinance.
NJDZ,2007-AR-J 2097, flEA VENLY CFPUD
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 94 of 124
PREPARED BY:
/J-.-/lt /Jt
JO -DAV MOSS,AICP,PRINCIPALPLANNER dATE {
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
r { ~ 4-( J(}
~TON-CICKO
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
~~iL(4:, ~NAGER /7-' '~;'~EQ;
DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
'2f2"2ID~
DATE
xi~ '--fIt. ~ ---12/1g>!OR
S"l'fSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR 'DATE
DEP AR'IMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
I,J.~/cg/
S 'PH K. SCHMITT, ADM STRATOR ' w...TE
UNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
'2-/1'07
DATE '
Tentatively scheduled for thc Februmy 10,2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, HEAVENLY CFPUD
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
AGENDA ]~a of 124
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
DATE:
JANUARY 15, 2009; CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 19,2009
PETmON: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, HEA VENL Y COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD)
RE:
This item was most recently scheduled for tbe Collier County Planning Commission's (CCPC)
January 15, 2009 public hearing. However, at that hearing, the proposed PUD document
undelWent multiple revisions on the floor and, tberefore, was continued by the CCPC so that a
thorough review of the revised document could be carried out by staff and a second presentation
made to the CCPC on February 19, 2009.
It was the applicants' intention to utilize the additional time gained ii'om the continuance to
resolve any remaining issues with the sun-ounding community. However, by the writing of this
supplemental staff report, Januaty 27, 2009, the applicant was only able to provide staff with a
version of the CFPUD document that had not yet been reviewed by Mr, Tony Pires, the attorney
representing one of the various neighborhood coalitions,
Nevertheless, staff is generally satisfied that the proposed changes to the CFPUD document made
by the applicant reflect those agreed upon at the Januaty 15th CCPC meeting; and has
incolporated stipulations into Exhibit !, "Conditions of Approval," where staff considered minor
changes necessary. 'lbe CFPUD document showing aU of the modifications since the Jat1Uaty 15,
2009 public heat'ing has been attached to this repolt in strike-though atld underline format.
The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staffs previous recommendation
remains the same as that noted in the original staff report dated November 6, 2008. As such, staff
recommends that the CCPC forwat'd PUDZ-2007-AR-12097 to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to stipulations contained in the
Exhibit I, dated January 27, 2009, which are attached to the ordinance.
Appendix 1: Leiter of Objection
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 96 of 124
PREPARED BY:
(~ 1/;-7/0;
JO AVID OSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE'
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
~d ktlo
H IDI ASHTON-CICKO
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
~ / '?>/Ol
DATE
Ilzsl 01
D BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER I DATE
NT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~ '-rho /~ ~ '/-z-r;;!or;
Su5AN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
.2./:J../o'1
EPH K. SCHMITT, ADMI ISTRATOR DATE
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
2-11/0;
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the March 24, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
PUDZ-2007-AR-J 2097, HEAVENLY CFPUD
-.
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 97 of 124
Joseph Bandy
603 We~i Street
Naples, FL 34108
January 22, 2009
Collier County Planning Connnission
3301 E. Tamiami Trail-Bldg F
Naples, FL 34112
Attention: Chairman
RE: Heavenly MPUD-Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples
Dear Chairman:
We are very concerned with the subject dev~lopment since we live directly across the street from
"Section B" which is now owned by the "Bank" and is rented out to "Iglesia De Cristo", a Spanish
Church.
1 would like to advise you that there is loud music going on until 11 :OOpm, 11 :30pm and up to
., midnight. The music is so loud that even with their windows and doors closed, we hear it. After the
loud music stops, the people come outside and talk and scream loud which lasts for a half hour or so.
Then it's the car lights and honking as they leave the parking lot. TIle car lights shine directly to our
master bedroom. 1ms loud music happens several nights per week. We cannot sleep anymore.
The noise, traffic and car lights are destroying our quiet neighborhood and our quality of life. We
bought our house in Pine Ridge Estates primarily for the quiet, serene and countrified area.
The church programs are 7 days II week. The development of the Cllvenllnt Presbyterian
Church will make the situation much Wllrse than what we currently experience due to the
vlllume of cars c,'eatlng more traffic and noise disrupting our quiet neighborhood.
Enclosed you will fmd tile following copies ofletters that we mailed re Heavenly MPUD::
Letter to Michael R, Fernandez, AIep President dated 10/31/2008. (1 pg)
Letter to John David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner dated 9/18/2008 with a copy of the
petition (3 pgs of signatures for the denial rezoning).
Copy of the 'Petition for ,the denial rezoning known as "Heavenly MPUD" was also hand
delivered to John David Moss, AlCP Principal Planner (3 pgs) on 3/2008..
_ Teresa Bandy 't.r::'~y ~
APPENDIX 1
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 98 of 124
ORDINANCE NO. 09
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, 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 CLASSIFICA TlON OF THE
HEREIN DESCRffiED REAL PROPERTY FROM A SINGLE-
FAMILY (RSF-1) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMUNITY
FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE
HEAVENLY CFPUD, LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP
49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 15.9310 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Richard D, Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and
Koester, P.A., rcprcscnting Thc Covcnant Prcsbytcrian Church of Naples, Inc, and Florida
Community Bank, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning
classification ofthe herein described real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 3,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the RSF-I Zoning
District to a Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District, known
as The Heavenly CFPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A through I, attached hereto and
incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or
maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly,
Page I 0[2
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 99 of 124
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _ day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, Chairn1an
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
r\(j\~ /O~
y1/
Attachments:
Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses
Exhibit B - Development Standards
Exhibit C - Master Plan
Exhibit D - Legal Description
Exhibit E - List of Requested Deviations
Exhibit F - List of Developer Commitments
Exhibit G - Graphic Depiction & Guide of V crtical Building Height
Exhibit G-I- Graphic Depiction & Guide of Vertical Building Height-Tract B
Exhibit H - Conceptual Architectural Rendering
Exhibit I - Conditions of Approval
CP\08-CPS-00840\GO 2/25/09 HF AC
Page 2 of2
HEAVENLY
COMMUNITY FACILITY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD)
EXHIBITS A through I
March 9, 2009
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 100 of 124
Page 1 of 18
Agenda Item No, 86
March 24, 2009
Page 101 of 124
EXHmIT A
GENERAL:
Development of the Heavenly CFPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and
applicable sections and pmts of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Orowth Management Plan
(OMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to fmal
subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminalY work authorization, to
which such regulations relate.
(fRACT A)
PERMITTED USES:
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. One house of worship with a maximum seating capacity of 1,000 individuals. (See Exhibit F,
Tract A, Commitment Number 6),
B. Accessory Uses:
I. Religious Educational Classrooms and Chorus Rehearsal Room
2. SociallMeeting and Fellowship Center
3. Administrative Offices
4. Child! Adult Day Care I Pre-K/Kindergmtenl School, limited to 1 st through 3fd; with no more
than a combined cumulative total of 220 students/individuals enrolled/attending for the entire
CFPUD. The allocation to Tract A shall be 170, but may be increased by mutual agreement
of the Tract A and B owners [if in differcnt owncrship] provided the total number of
studcnts/individuals for the entire CFPUD does not exceed 220,
5. Non-commercial accessory uses characterized by civic group meetings such as The Pine
Ridge Civic Association, Scouting, community service organizations (e,g, the Naples'
Parkinson's Association), safety fairs for the community and the like; and stluctures
customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures; except that parking
garages are prohibited. Business and trade activities, including but not limited to a "mm'ket,"
"community market," direct marketing outlet or "fanners' market," are not accessory uses
associated with the permitted principal uses and structures,
C, TempoTary Uses:
I. Temporary building structures may be utilized to accommodate existing uses in the initial
redevelopment constmction transition period. Such uscs shall not begin until after the
property owner applies for a building pennit for thc first new permanent building and the
maximum period of use of such temporary building(s) shall be for a period of 27 months,
after the building permit is issued for the first new permanent building. Any such building(s)
shall meet CFPUD setbacks requirements for new structures,
March 9, 2009
Page 2 of 18
Agenda Item No, 88
March 24, 2009
Page 102 of 124
(TRACT B)
PERMITTED USES:
No building or stmcture, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in
palt, for other than the following:
A, Principal Uses:
1. One I'Iouses of worship with a maximum seating capacity of200 individuals,
B, Accessory Uses:
1. Religious Educational Classrooms and Chorus Rehearsal Room
2, Social/Meeting and Fellowship Center '
3, Administrative Offices
4. Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindcrgal1en / School,limited to 1" through 3'd; with no more
than a combincd cumulative total of 220 studcnts/individuals cmolled for the entire CFPUD,
The allocation to Tract B shall be 50, but may be reallocated to Tract A by mutual agrcement
of the Tract A and B owners [if under different ownership] provided the total number of
students/individuals for the entire CFPUD does not exceed 220,
5, Non-commercial acccssory uses charactcrizcd by civic group mcetings such as The Pine
Ridge Civic Association, Scouting, community service organizations (e,g, the Naples'
Parkinson's Association), safety fairs for the community and the like; and stmctures
customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures; except that parking
garagcs are prohibited, 13usiness and trade activities, including but not limited to a "market,"
"community market," direct marketing outlet or "falmers' market," are not accessory uses
associated with the permitted principal uses and structures,
March 9, 2009
Page 3 of 18
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 103 of 124
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TRACT A
Together with the text that follows below arc the development standards for land uses within Tract A of this
CFPUD 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 site development plan (SDP).
. PIUNCIP AL USES ' '.. ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA -;-, 14:i acres N/A
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 538 ft, N/A
---,-
MINIMUM YARDS (from right-of-
way line abutting the property)
Existing The greater of 30 ft, or the zoned height SPS
of structure. SPS
Expanded buildings(5) 50 ft. for expanded pOliion
Ncw structlll'es 200 ft,; except, 50 ft. from Trail Boulcvard SPS
-- --
MINIMUM YARDS (between tracts)
Side 30 ft, SPS
..,
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN The greater of 15 ft, or Jh the sum of the SPS
STRUCTURES zoned buiIdin!1 hei!1ht8
------ 35 ft.1TOJ
MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT 35 ft.
MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT 50 ft.('J(lj 50ft,C1j (IU)
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES
,New 2(3) 2
ExistinglExpanded 1 SPS
------
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 2,500 sq. ft. 400 sq. ft,
MAXIMUM SQUARE F"OOTAGJEl'l!
I-louse of Wor8hip(G) 28,000 sq. ft.
AccessoryUses(7) (9) 40,000 sq, ft.
Circulation/Maintenance/Storage ' 12,000 sq. ft,
PRESERVESETBACKS~ _._-------..
25 fl. 25 ft.
L-,
SPS= Same as Principal Structure
(l)
Includes the vertical distance between the finished floor elevation and the average center line
elevation of abutting roads, which is estimated to be between 4 feet and 5 feet.
Maximum actual height of the house of worship may be exceeded by up to 40 feet by non-
occupiable building elements, singularly or in combination, such as a steeple, cupola, religious
symbol or other excluded height permitted by LDC Subsection 4,02,OI.D,I, as may be amended.
Page 4 of18
(2)
March 9, 2009
March 9, 2009
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 104 of 124
(3)
(4)
The maximum combined square footage of such building clements shall be 4,000 square feet.
See Exhibit G for graphic dcpiction of vertical elevation measurement.
Exclusive of mezzanines, loft areas and attic or attic storage areas.
Should both Tract B and Tract A be in the same ownership, then the permitted intensity shall be
aggregated, provided that in no event shall the square footage of all struetnres within the boundaries
of the CFPUD exceed 100,000 square feet.
Expansions whieh add square footage to any existing individual building are limited to a
cumulative maximum of20% of the building's square footage as of the date ofPUD approval. A
signed and sealed survey of the existing building(s) proposed for expansion and an additional
exhibit prepared by and signed and scaled by a professional engineer which depicts the proposed
and all prior expansions since the datc of PUD approval, shall be submitted with the associated
SOP A and building pennit applications.
House of worship square footage not utilized shall be available for accessOlY uses,
The maximum area of an individual room shall be 12,000 square feet.
Listed setback is for all principal and accessory stmctnres, Setback provisions, relative to
preserves, for parking lots, sidewalks and othcr site improvements shall be governed by
applicable LDC provisions in effect at the timc of SOP A application,
Thc Child! Adult Day CarefPre-K1KindergartenfSchool use shall be located a minimum of 200
feet from West Strcet, Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road.
Buildings located outside of the "church campus building envelope" depicted on the Master Plan
shall be limited to 25 feet in height.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(H)
(9)
(10)
A,
Fl uff ers
I, All perimeter landscape buffers shall be installed with the first SOP for a new permanent
building or with the SOP that providcs for the relocation of the lake.
2, All required buffer trees along Myrtle Road, Ridge Drive and West Street shall be Quercus
virginiana, provided in 65 Gallon containers 14 feet height and are to be Florida # I or Florida
Pancy. Street trees are to be planted on 30 feet center, Quercus virginiana is to be planted a
minimum of 10 feet frol11 the ccnter line of the required planting bed towards the adjacent
ROWand is specifically not to be planted within the required 6 feet wide sluub planting bed
specified below, Trail Blvd. buffer trees shall be Roystonia regia (Royal Palms) as providcd for
in deviation #3.
3. The maximwn watcr management area within the combined frontage buffers of Tracts A and B
shall he 50%; and the maximum width of the water management use shall not exceed 70% of
the buffer's depth.
4. (a) The hedge component of thc continuous perimeter LDC Type 0 landscape buffcr abutting
West Street and Myrtle Road (extending to the driveway on Myrtle Road) shall be installed
with a minimum height of 5 feet, spaced 4 feet on center and grown and maintained to a
Page 5 of 18
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 105 of 124
minimum height of 12 feet above grade of any adjacent bcrm; and a 6 foot black or green clad
chain link fence shall be hidden within this double hedge row.
(b) Along West Street the hedge shall be maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet except
that portion abutting Tract B which shall be maintained at a minimum height of 6 feet.
(c) Along Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road the hedge shall be maintained at a minimum height of
6 feet except for that portion adjacent to Myrtlc Road dcscribcd above which shall be
maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet.
(d) Along Trail Boulevard, the hedges shall be 2 feet in height at the time of planting and
maintained at three feet in height except for sight distance tl'iangles, which shall be maintained
at 30 inches.
B. Parking Lot Lighting
Pole lights shall be restricted to a maximum of 16 feet in height, measured to the top of the emitting
fixture, and their use shall be further restricted to interior parking lots and at ingress-egress drives,
Campus lighting shall be limited to bollards, landscape and building lighting fixtures. Bollards shall
have a maximum height of 48 inches.
C. Existing Ingress - Egress Driveways
Existing driveways will be eliminated or reconfigured, as depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan, as the
tracts are redeveloped.
D. Open Space
The project will provide and maintain a minimum of 30% of gross project area [Le. not less than
4,8="acres] as open space. Open space includes but is not limited to landscape buffers, interior
landscaping, building foundation landscaping, dry water management areas and lakes.
At the time of build-out, and thereafter, the project shall provide and maintain a minimum of 40% of the
gross project area [Le, not less than 6.3=" acres] as open space, Build-out, relative to this provision, shall
be the time when 80,000 square fcet of structures exist within Tract A.
E, Water Management
The existing 3,3=" acre borrow pit lake, shall be reconfigured and relocated as depicted on the CFPUD
Master Plan. The project shall provide the greatcr of (I) the capacity required by water management
design standards for a 3 day, 25 year storm event, (2) the capacity of the existing lake, 01' (3) the
capacity required by water management design standards at the time that development order approval is
sought. Capacity may be met, in part, with dry water management areas.
The surface water management systcm shall be designed such that no surface water runoff or discharge
is directed towards or into the Pine Ridge surface water managcmcnt system including adjacent roadside
swales to the north, east and south,
March 9, 2009
Pagc6of18
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 106 of 124
The surface water management system shall be a zero discharge system or the discharge shall be routed
through the project to the west, through existing or new drainage facilities in Trail Boulevard, Tamiami
Trail NOlth (SR-45) and then ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico,
Water management areas required for the existing facilities that are to remain, including those within
Tract B, may be met by the facilitics and capacity in Tract A, These areas of existing facilities may be
located outside of the Tract A management containment berm provided that compensating water
management areas for the acreage have been provided. Tract B shall be integrated into the master water
management system if and when Tract B is redeveloped.
The minimum lake setback from the CFPUD bonndary, as measured at control elevation, shall be 25
feet. See fencing and associated landscape installation standards within this Ordinance.
Subject to final jurisdictional agency permitting, the designed capacity of the proposed storm water
management system shall at a minimum provide for the following noncumulative development
standards: pretreatment of not less than the first half inch of rainfall over the project's entire impcrvious
area, and the greater of 150% of water quality base requirement (not less than 2,5 inches over the cntire
project's impervious area) within dry water management areas and not less than 1,5 inches over the
entire project. The balance of the project's stonnwater management capacity shall provide compensatory
water quality for the portion of West Street adjacent to the project.
The West Street roadside swale and one or more abutting roadside swales shall be redesigned to allow
run off from the existing roads adjacent to the project to flow through the project to the outfall route,
The outfall route shall be designed to acecpt these additional flows,
Parking spaces fronting buffer and landscape areas shall utilize the Land Development Code
development standard that pelmits vehicular overhang to lessen the amount of pavement and therefore
reduce impervious area.
The plaza ru'ea located between the central campus buildings and the campus perimeter sidewalk and/or
curb shall be a minimum of 50% pervious,
F. Flat roof prohibition.
Flat roofs shall not be ntilized as a primary or principal roof component, as depicted in Exhibits G and
Ii, Flat roofs may be utilized for secondary roof areas when hidden from view by the use of articulated
architectural elements which create and provide for an aItieulated roofline.
G, Project Phasing.
The attached Master Plan depicts the redevelopment of Tract A, It is understood that the redevelopment
is likely to be realized over a number of phases which will likely include the retention of one or more
existing buildings and their associated improvements between phases.
II. Preserve,
The minimum required native vegetation for this site is 44 native trees (for the previonsly developed
portion of this site) and a minimum of an additional 0,12 acrcs of created preserve (15% of the existing
0,8 acres of native vegetation), The location of the 44 trees shall be within the perimeter landscape
March 9, 2009 Page 7 of 18
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 107 of 124
buffer along West Street and Myrtle Road. The location of the created preserve shall be identified at the
time of review and approval of the first SOP,
1. Parking Space Requirements and Restrictions,
The minimum parking spaces provided shall be 3 for each 7 seats within the house of worship. There
shall be no additional parking requirements for the additional uses. The maximum nwnber of vehicular
parking spaces, exclusive of loading and drop-off parking arcas shall be 500. Should Tract B and Tract
A be in the same ownership, then the pelmitted parking intensity for the combined Tracts shall be
aggregated.
], Hours of Operation Restrictions:
J. Child care and School:
between 6:30 am and 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday; for
operational hours, NOImal operational hours may be
exceeded until 9:30 p,m. up to 4 times per month for
acconul1odation of special functions,
between 6:30 am and 8:30 pm,
between 7:30 am and 10:30 pm.
2. Adult care:
3. Non-worship use of the facilities:
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TRACT B
Together with the text that follows are the development standards for land uses within Tract B of this
CFPUD Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections
of the LOC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SOP).
236 ft.
ACCESSORY'
USES
N/A
N/A
I))UNCIPAL USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
ML"\!"IMUM Y ARDS(&y----'
J. 9010 acres
Front
Existing
The greater of 30 ft. or the zoned height of
stl'Ucture
50 ft. for expanded portion
50 ft.
SPS
SPS
SPS
Expanded buildings(7)
New structures
Side
Existing
New structures
SPS
20 ft.
30 ft.
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN
STRUCTURES
[MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT
The greater of l5 ft, or Y, the sum of the
zoned building heights
35 ft
SPS
35 ft.
March 9, 2009
Page 8 of 18
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 108 of 124
~ 45 ft(l)(l) 45 ft-:m-
MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES i3) 2
__,___'~..__n__ ~ -~ ---------------- ---- -'._._~-- -.------_.-.
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 2,500 sq, ft, 400 sq, ft,
MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE (4)
House ofWorship(5) 5,600 sq. ft,
Accesso ry Uses 12,400 sq. ft.
Circulation/Maintenancc/Storage 2,000 sq, ft.
.-,-. --
SPS= Same as Principal Stmcture
(I)
Includes the vertical distance between the finished floor elevation and the average center line
elevation of abutting roads, which is estimated to be between 4 feet and 5 feet.
Maximum actual height may be exceeded by up to 7 fcet by one non~occupiable building
element, such as a steeple, cupola, or religious symbol. The maximum combined square footage
of such building elements shall be 2,000 sf.
Exclusive of mezzanines, loft areas and attic or attic storage areas,
Should both Tract B and Tract A be in the same ownership, then the permitted intensity shall be
aggregated,
House of worship square footage not utilized shall be available for accessory uses.
The maximum square footage of any individual room shall be less than thc squm-e footage ofthc
house of worship.
Expansions wbich add square footage to any cxisting individual building are limitcd to
cumulative maximum of20% of the building's square footage as of the date ofPUD approval. A
signed and sealed survey of the existing building(s) proposed for expansion and an additional
exhibit prepared by and signed and sealed by a professional engineer who depicts the proposcd
and all prior expansions since the date of PUD approval, shall be submitted with the associated
SDPA and building permit applications,
If Tract B and Tract A are owned or controlled or developed by the same person or entity, then
the Tract A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS shall be utilized for all propelty within thc
CFPUD, including Tract B, provided, however, that the total square~footage of all structures 011
Tract B do not exceed 20,000 square~feet and the maximum pelmitted heights for Tract Bare
maintained, Additionally, the Music and Hours of Operation for Tract B shall still apply.
If Tract B and Tract A are owned or controlled or developed by the same person or entity, there
will be no direct access to or from West Street.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
A. Buffers
1. Except as otherwise required or provided herein, perimeter buffers shall be installed concurrently
with the redevelopment improvements in their proximity, All right~of~way perimeter landscape
buffers shaJJ be installed with the first SDP for a new permanent building on Tract B.
2. All required buffer trees along Ridge Drive and West Street shaJJ be Quercus virginiana.
March 9, 2009
Page 9 of18
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 109 of 124
3, Hedges within perimeter landscape buffers along West Street and Ridge Drive shall be grown and
maintained to a minimum height of 6 feet.
4. There shall be no smface water management use within the perimeter buffers.
B. Parking Lot Lighting
Pole lights are restricted to a maximum height of 16 feet, measured to the top of the emitting fixture, and
their use is further restricted to interior parking lots and to meeting al1eriallevel requirements at ingress-
egress drives. Bollards shall have a maximum height of 48 inches.
C. Existing Ingress - Egress Driveways
Existing driveways shall be eliminated or reeonfigured, as depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan, as the
site is redeveloped, The two restricted one-way access driveways serving Tract B shall be removed with
the reconstruction, replacement or demolition and removal of the existing buildings. Thereafter, the
ingress-egress to the Tract will be via shared driveways located within Tract A.
D. Open Space
The project shall provide and maintain a minimum of 30% of gross project area [i.e, not less than
4.801acres] as open space. Open space includes but is not limited to landscape buffers, intcrior
landscaping, building foundation landscaping, dry water management areas and lakes,
At the time of build-out, and thereafter, the project shall provide and maintain a minimum of 40% of the
gross project area [i.e. not less than 6,301 acres] as open space. Build-out, relative to this provision, shall
be the time when 80,000 square feet of structures exist within Tract A,
Tract B shall include buffers that meet the LDC landscape requirements for buffers, interior landscaping
and building foundation planting areas. These and any other landscaped and open spaee areas shall
contribute to the overall open space requirement of the CFPUD. The minimum open space requirement
for Tract B and its associated contribution toward meeting the gross CFPUD minimum open space
requirement shall be 20% of the gross area of Tract B.
E. Water Management
The existing 30301 acre borrow pit lake, shall be reconfigured and rclocated as depicted on the CFPUD
Master Plan, The project shall provide the greater of (I) the capacity required by water management
design standards for a 3 day, 25 year storm event, (2) the capacity of the existing lake, or (3) the
capacity required by water management design standards at the time that development order approval is
sought. Capacity may be met, in part, with dry water management areas,
The surface water management system shall be designed such that no surface water runoff 01' discharge
is directed towards or into the Pine Ridge surface water management system including adjacent roadside
swales to the n01111, east and south.
March 9, 2009
Page 10 of 18
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 11001124
The surface water management system shall be a zero discharge system or the discharge shall be routed
through the project to the west, through existing or new drainage facilities in Trail Boulevard, Tamiami
Trail North (SR-45) and then Pelican Bay ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico,
Water management areas required for the existing facilities that are to remain, including those within
Tract B, may be met by the facilities and capacity in Tract A, These areas of existing facilities may be
located outside of the Tract A management contailllilent berm provided that compensating water
managcment arcas for the acrcage have becn providcd, Tract I3 shall be integrated into the master water
management system if and when Tract B is redeveloped,
Subject to final jurisdictional agency pemlitting, the designed capacity of the proposed storm water
management system shall at a minimum provide for the following non-cumulative development
standards: pretreatment of not less than the first half inch of rainfall over the project's entire impervious
area, and the greater of 150% of water quality base requirement (not less than 2.5 inches over the entire
project's impervious area) within dry water management areas and not less than 1.5 inches over the
entire project. The balance of the project's storm water management capacity shall provide
compensatory water quality for the portion of West Street adjacent to the project.
The West Street roadside swale and one or more abutting roadside swales shall be redesigned to allow
run off from the existing roads adjacent to the project to flow to the outfall route. The outfall route shall
be designed to accept these additional flows,
Parking spaces fronting buffer and landscape areas shall utilize the Land Development Code
development standard that permits vehicular overhang to lessen the amount of pavement and therefore
reduce impervious area,
F. Flat roof prohibition,
Flat roofs may not be utilized as a primary or principal roof component. Flat roofs may be utilized for
secondary roof areas when hidden from view by the use of atiiculated architectural elements which
create and provide for an ariiculated roof line.
G. Project Phasing.
It is understood that the redevelopment may be realized over a number of phases and may include the
retention of the existing buildings and associated improvements between phases.
H, Parking Space Requirements and Restrictions.
The minimum parking spaces provided shall be 3 for each 7 seats within the house of worship. There
shall be no additional parking requirements for the additional uses, The maximum number of vehicular
parking spaces, exclusive of loading and drop-off parking areas shall bc 100, Should both Tract Band
Tract A be in the same ownership, then the pennitted parking intensity of the combined Tracts shall be
aggregated,
I. Hours of Operation Restrictions:
I. Child care and School:
between 6:30 am and 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday;
for operational hours, Normal operational hours may be
Page 1] of] 8
March 9, 2009
2. Adult care:
3. Non worship use of the facilities:
4. Worship
5. Music
March 9, 2009
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 111 of 124
exceeded until 9:30 p,m, up to 4 times per month for
accommodation of special functions.
between 6:30 am and 8:30 pm.
between 7:30 am and 10:30 pm,
between 6:30 a.m, and 10:30 p,m, Nonnal operational
hours may be exceeded up to 2 times per month for
accommodation of special functions.
Outdoor music is prohibited; and indoor music shall only
be allowed when windows and doors are closed, There
shall be no live, recorded 01' amplified music of any kind
prior to 8 a,l11. OJ' after 9:30 p.m. The limitation on the time
for live, recorded or amplified music may be exceeded up
to two times pel' month for accOlmnodation of special
worship functions,
Pagel2ofl8
CO"'..-
""ON
O~
ON--
Z _0
......~N
c: ~
,"L:)~
::::2(1)
CllCllCll
-g2~
'"
Cll
<(
~ME!
r~lr I
1,r:;
'uRI
..~~!
~ ! i!
i h
! pi
_._.-.~,j t I
i1~\t'I ti
- --.-.-" ~' :
j ~ !
,
,j
~~~l
".rei
~'~'.~ I
'~"Jl
~l i
,
i
,
--J
,
I
JJ
.-'---'1
i
,
,
:_\1
"<)'j
" l"1
t;~ f
:~~l
~,~i r
'11
"
,
,
,
i
--1
,
;
,
I
;~
,~:.' iJ
~~ ".~'
,W,~ ~~
~; .. ~
'J
, 1(l(lOO'~r~,Lt' : O~I O,'<'J j'(lL'(ln<l-'~<N '-'-'f; "\H 1-;"\:['~''''\l~I'~ ',-l" ~'."'J I U
I "",,,on,,,,',,' ..",,, ""... "" .".,',_'r1';.'~-'" I
L._.~,~..~'_~.~r_.n___. ._._ ~~~;~~~:'ff-- _"" _.:.,~c>~~~_~:'___,_,J
~_~~~ _._ _<< aVO_~31~_~L
'"'''_~''''-''''V''''''''H
(~...~..... -- ..~.~_._..._" ...-..-,~..' ~.
,
I
,
;
,
;
,
i
f
,
,
i
,
i
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
i
,
,
,
'-';'-;~''':' .-~.~;'.'::'':'_;'._'''! .,
t' ~~'uv'~;;~~~~~;I\I'; ':,'~'l j
:lI11JYMJ,Uooao>>vIIWt::-, z
...,...~.~~~~~:Ol:l~:_'~;;i::! ~
n \J',i ~
: 1:.1 a
j., i
; I
, ,
, ,
c
;
,
,
,
,
!> -
rrl'"'QHH.l~l
ftlllllOllnn i:
.'
CJ l!
~ .J
~ J;-"
II. L)(i
n___J
~~ (f;:- ------=---'1,3Afffi:[:;l!:f@C: (I
--~-, r-----_______ -- ----tr:B&.------- -1 l
1 l ~r{JopgIUH (I" '" j I 'r,O"a" ," I.' > .'l"Y'~ - L' " J :
t I In,,~~\~l'i~.~.;'.~ 1,\,~';,~,,:" l:,~;..~t{,,,'''' I
o
i. '111111! i
~ ! I tj !'I~lll ! I'
i I ~!!ilii I !
~ I I ~i 1;!llblll 'I'
i ' !lll'li I!
,Ilitll liil~111111
~IIIIII ~ il!l!il!H!!
" ill
II 'il
! Ill' IIIi
, 'I' hi!
~ ~ a oj fit
c
0", "
,
~ ! i~'~~"M''i
<l u
'" , >- " ;
~ , j~ " I
~o.~ j! ,
~! ,
~I~ " ,
ml ,
~ D ,
,
~I ! i
~ " ,
'I lQiJi
~ ~'L__ __J
'" ~
0
0 ill ~
:=J
r ~
0 K '
" '
':', l :i "
0' 1
I
,
I
,
I
~
o
,i I!
f' "1& 1 , 1,' III I
~ ~ I'! I
~m 'l I' , JoJi"!1l
' lis.,!
11[11 d llj:1 j'
j III! 1M III, m !lll
~l~l V~i!l, il" ~ II
t ~.;
I II-
i. i i
13
~ z
(J u:l
>-.. ~Q,.
~ ~~
~ <
r1i >
l<;
II
~ I,,~
i ql
f, i.3" ~
! . i
HI j I
. !
l'-< it",
o q
,S ."
"'"' ~f ~
~ "1
(IS ~fi;
'" ,
C) . .,
EaRl'
.,~'
-I
"
oD
J. A I;
, I
, l
..
!
I
I
il
I
II
.1
;
Agenda Item No. 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 113 of 124
EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(TRACT A)
FOLIO NUMBERS: 67285160009,67285280002,67285360003,67285320001
LOTS 1.7 AND 10.13, BLOCK "0", PfNE RIDGE EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 51, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(TRACT B)
FOLIO 67285400002
LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 0, PINE RIDGE EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 51 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
March 9, 2009
Page 14 of 1&
Agenda Item No, 88
March 24, 2009
Page 114 of 124
EXIDBIT E
LIST OF REQUESTED DE VIA nONS FROM LDC
(TRACT A)
1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6,06,02,A, Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements which
requires sidewalks within road right-of-way; except that sidewalks shall be provided along Trail
Boulevard and along that portion of Myrtle Road between Trail Boulevard and the project ingress-egress
driveway to Myrtle Road, The property owner shall make a payment in lieu of providing the sidewalks
along the balance of the abutting right-of-way. The developer shall also construct one sidewalk
extension from the central building campus across Trail Boulevard to the pavement along US 41 to
provide access to a potential bus stop, as conceptually depicted on the CFPUD Mastcr Plan,
2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4,06,05,N. which requires naturalization of man made
lakes and water mrulagcmont areas through the use of curvilinear edges; to pcnnit aecomplislunent of
the intent through the llse of a curvilinear lruldscape installation instead of a curvilincar physical contour.
3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4,06,05,D,2.a, which provides that no more than 30% of
the canopy trecs may be substituted by palms within an individual Type D Buffer to permit up to 100%
utili,..ation of palms along Trail Boulevard provided that the perccntage of palms does not cxceed 30% of
the required perimeter buffer trees for Tracts A and B; and, that the palms utilized are Royal Palms; and,
that all required buffcr trees along Myrtle Road, West Street and Ridge Drive shall be canopy! shade
trees.
4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Subscction 5.05.08.E,2,c, Minimum ratios. Pedestrian pathway
connections must be provided from the building to adjacent road pathways at a ratio of one for each
vehicular cntrance to a project, AND drive aisles leading to main entrances must have at least a walkway
on one side of the drivc aisle; to permit a reduction to a maximum of five pedestrian pathways to: two
(2) to Trail Boulevard, one (I) to Myrtle Road, one (I) to Ridge Drive and one (I) to West Street in the
locations depicted on the CFPUD Mastel' Plan; AND to permit them in locations other than along one
side of the drive aisle.
5, Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4,06,01.A to eliminate the required buffer between
Tracts A and B; provided that the equivalent square footage of the 10 foot wide buffer, for that length
not provided, and the associated tree requirement of I tree per 30 linear feet, is located elsewhere 'Within
the Tract. Should the entire CFPUD acreage be submitted for permitting as a single SOP, the buffcr
would not be required and therefore this deviation request would not be applicable,
6, Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Suhsections 5,()3,02,E.2, and 5.03,02,EA. to eliminate the
requirement for a nomesidential development located opposite a residentially zoned district to provide a
four (4) foot masonry wall or prefabricated concrete wall located a minimum of three (3) feet from the
rear of the right-of-way landscapc buffer line.
March 9, 2009
Page 15 oflB
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 115 of 124
(TRACT B)
1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Seetion 6,06,02,A. Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements which
require sidewalks witlnn abutting rights-of-way. The propeliy owner shall make a payment in-lieu of
providing sidewalk segments which would otherwise be required prior to the issuance of the first SDP
for a new permanent building.
2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4,06.01.A to eliminate the required buffer between
Tracts A and B; provided that the equivalent square footage of the 10 foot wide buffer, for that length
not provided, and the associated tree requirement of 1 tree per 30 linear feet, is located elsewhere
within the Tract. Should the entire CFPUD acreage be submitted for permitting as a single SDP, the
buffer would not be required and therefore this deviation request would not be applicable.
3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Subsections 5,03,02.E,2, and 5.03.02,EA. to eliminate the
requirement for a nonresidential development located opposite a residentially zoned district to provide a
four (4) foot masonry wall or prefabricated concrete wall located a minimum of three (3) feet from the
rear of the right-of-way landscape buffer line.
March 9, 2009
Page 160f18
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 116 of 124
EXHIBIT F
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
(TRACT A)
1. The initial redevelopment SOP for Tract A shall include:
a, the replacement of the existing lake with a new lake(s) and associated dry water management
areas;
b. the redevelopment of landscape buffers abutting the Iake(s) and associated dry water
management areas;
c. the re-grading of the right-of-way green space between the CFPUD boundary and edge of
pavement of the four adjacent roadways to enhance storm water management for these !'Oadway
areas,
2. The minimum throat length as measured from the roadway edge of payment to the internal parking
area shall be 50 feet for driveways from MYltle Road, West Street and Ridge Drive; and, 75 feet for
driveways from Trail Boulevard.
3. For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collier
County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law
enforcement app!'Oved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and at
loeation(s) as directed by the Collier County Transportation Administrator or his designee.
4, The Ridge Drive primary egress driveway will be restricted to a "no right turn" condition, The
MYltle Road cgrcss driveway will be restricted and signcd to a "no left turn" condition, The Myrtle
Road access shall be closed at dusk.
5. A west bound turn lane on Ridge Drive, extending from the egress driveway to US 41, shall be
constructed concurrently by the property owner with the initial redevelopment phase of
development.
6, The seating capacity of the House of Worship shall be limited to 780 seats (980 for the entire
CFPUD), and the total number of students/individuals el1l'olled in Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-
K/Kindergarten / School, limited to 1st through 3'd, within Tract A shall be limited to 60 persons
unless the Tract B owner agrees to reallocate all or a portion of its allocation to Tract A (110 for the
entire CFPUD), until US 41 turn lanes serving the site are extended to meet design standards; or a
traffie study, based in pazt on actual traffic counts, is provided to and confirmed by the County,
demonstrating that the existing turn lancs are adequate. The traffic counts for this traffic study will
be taken during the first quarter of a calendar year to more accw'ately portray peak season loading
measures and will include traffic counts at Myrtle Road and West Street and Ridge Drive and West
Street.
One year after the seating capacity of 853 for the entire CFPUD and the 110 pcrson Child! Adult Day
Care/Pre-K/Kindergarten/School limited to 1 'I through 3rd for the entire CFPUD ("the base") is
reached, a supplemental traf1ic study will be done to determine the trips originating or leaving the
March 9, 2009 Page 17 of t 8
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 117 of 124
CFPUD through the neighborhood. The traffic counts for this supplemental traffic study will be
taken during the first quarter of a calendar year to more accurately portray peak season loading and
will include traffic counts at Ridge Drive and West Street, Myrtle Road and West Street, Ridge
Drive and Trail Boulevard and Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard, This supplemcntal data will be
utilized by the County to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to the
neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the existing uses and as a condition
of approval for the additional seating capacity of 347 and/or the additional 110 students/individuals.
The additional traffic improvements may include traffic calming measures.
The traffic counts required as part of the required PUD monitoring report shall be done during the
first quarter of a calendar year for impacts exceeding those established as "the base" in the preceding
paragraph.
7, The new buildings on Tract A shall be consistent with the conceptual architectural rendering
attached as Exhibit H,
(TRACT B)
I. For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as dctermined by Collier
County staff, the pl'opelty owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law
enforcement approved service provider shall be as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and
at location(s) as directcd by the Collier County Transportation administrator 01' his designee,
2. A payment-in-lieu-of contribution shall be made by the property owner to the County for otherwise
required sidewalks within abutting right-of-way to Tract B prior to issuance of the first Site
Development Plan for a new pcrmancnt building on Tract B.
3. The new building on Tract B shall be architecturally compatible with the new buildings on Tract A.
March 9, 2009
Page \8 of 18
EXHIBIT G
JOB CODE: HCFrUD
SCALE: I" = JO'
--------------
----------
~
...
~
~
"
~
F~---
-------------- --
DATE,IUJIR
FILEt.'I\ME: ExhibitG
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
P8n" 11R nf 1?4
1
o
-~, 1
I ~
RoofUnCl I 1
------ --------~
___-~ ----------=== Mid Point of Roof
~ 'f---------=- _ ---------____ 1
"
'"
1l
~
--------------
J
Adjacellt Average Centerline Road ElevnJion
Fl'ont Elevation
"IE
--------------- ------------------
-- ~
1
i
o
1
T'crmillcd ExcltlRions Limited
to 4,OOOs.f. Mllximum
-----_ Mid Poinl of Roof
~------ 1
~
'"
1l
~
j
Adjacent Average Centerline Road ElcvntiOIl
Rear Elevatiun
~_"., 8'1\'[. ~.~',!:'[~:.,,,,,,.~':n~~~.~.~rl~~'~~~!~. T,El~LlI~;~,';
. I.WI1U..""" . ,..,,"".., . 'fl'"''''''
'n".,'_" ."...".,., ".".,.w.
, >::~~,,"",,:~':':::",~~
W"'W,ClRAUnn"QR(O\1
Agenda Item No, 88
March 24, 2009
Page 119 of 124
"-
::>
"'....
~ ~ili:
O:;Q
~~~
~i
NON-OCCUPIABLE BUILDING ELEMENTS
ELEV, . 52'.0"
MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT FROM
AVERAGE CENTERLINE ELEVATION
OF A8UnlNG ROAO
ELEV, . 45'.0"
MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT
(MID POINT OF ROOF)
ELEV, = 35'<)"
FINISH FLOOR HEIGHT
ELEV, = 0'-0"
AVERAGE CENTERLINE ELEVATION
OF ABUTTING ROAD
APPROX. ELEV. = -4'.0.
A GRAPHIC EXAMPLE OF "TRACT B" -
MAXIMUMS DEPICTED
"CONCEPTUAL ONLY"
A Graphic Example of "Tract B"
Florida Community Bank
Collier County, Florida
DATE: Fobruary 18, 2009
HUMPHREY'ROSAL
ARCHITECTS
32{)O 9TH ST. NORTH (239) 263-4201
SUITE 1J.300 FAX (239) 263-4451
NAPLES, FLORl0A34103
Exhibit G (1)
Exhibit H
Conceptual
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 120 of 124
Architectural
~, . *
" '. ~;r--_ ,', " -
!i1\'!~'I'II".I/iri?>"vr~",,+:- !l'''
. . ... ""~"M.Y,i~~~~h',,'i'
~.~~
* 'lhis ardrLb:cllll:al mil=r:inJ is =UIb.al. M:difimtiaB rrqy l:e lllili> as :rcq.lirm tn
J:e cnsimnt >,U:h <'\:Pliable ~ regi1,.-,1:iu13 a-rl-aS-d3'll-m.= ,._," "~o.r&4!L~'
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 121 of 124
EXHIBIT I
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
February 3, 2009
1. Any plan submitted pursuant to this CFPUD shall be in substantial confOlmance with
the approved conceptual Master Plan entitled "Exhibit C Master Plan," prepared by
Planning Development Incorporated, consisting of one sheet, dated Novcmber 25,
2008, as revised through January 16,2009, exeept as conditioned.
2. The access points located on West Street and Ridge Drive, depicted on Tract B of the
Master Plan, shall close when this tract redevelops,
3. The required O,12-acre re-created preserve shall meet County preserve requirements
and shall recreate the habitat that previously existed on-site (pine flatwoods), including
all three vegetative strata.
4, A landscape planting plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of the
first SDP for each ofthc tracts.
5. The property owners shall provide, 01' shall pay thc County to provide, a bus shelter at
the existing Collier Area Transit stop located adjaccnt to US 41, which is located at the
stub-out in the median separating Trail Boulevard and US 41 as depicted on the
Master Plan. This bus shelter is required to be constructed when development reaches
a one percent or greater impact on USA 1 , or as a stipulation of Phase Two
improvements, whichever occurs first.
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 122 of 124
February 19,2009
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I just -- you just recently approved a
church on two acres with 300 seats. We're asking for 200 seats.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay? You know, we're asking for 200
seats on two acres, you just approved 300 seats on two acres. From an
intensity standpoint, it's measured by seats. I don't think that's -- I just
use it as an example.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what we saw as the layout
of that church, we saw everything figured out. We didn't -- it wasn't
phantom impressions as to what that square footage would be.
And that's -- and what Donna said is right. I wish this one wasn't
in the project and we dealt with it as a conditional use, and maybe
they would get that. But --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I think the answer's been no
16 times, so let's just end this discussion and let's have any other
discussion on this particular project and then we're going to ask for a
motion.
Is there any other questions, any other discussions by anybody
on this project at this time?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Were you going to -- I'm not
sure I have all the notes. Were you going to go ahead like you usually
do and list everything that you have?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, staffs been taking the notes. We've
articulated them very carefully. They're going to come back on
consent. There's too many notes to go through on that manner that you
have asked.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No problem at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what I'm looking for, is
someone willing to make a motion on this project?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion.
Page 107
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 123 of 124
Februmy 19,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, known as Heavenly Commlll1ity Facilities
Planned Unit Development, I would recommend approval to the
Board of County Commissioners, based on the stipulations found in
the staff report and as amended and for those items that have been
carefully articulated and recorded during this entire process.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Mr. Murray,
seconded by Commissioner Wolfley.
And I believe it's comprehensive enough for staff to follow what
they need to on that regard, and I'm getting nods of heads, so that
means yes.
Is there any discussion from any members of the Planning
Commission on the motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Non-redundant? No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All
those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raising your
hand.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six in favor.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposed. And Mr. Vigliotti is
abstaining.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm going to abstain to avoid
Page 108
Agenda Item No, 8B
March 24, 2009
Page 124 of 124
February 19,2009
any possible conflict of interest. And I will file the necessary
paperwork.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: And just for the executive summary
purposes, the reason for the votes against this board was just stated,
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: And it has to do with the square footage.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Y cab. This would create
excessive density on Lot B, thus violating the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood. Out of scale with the neighborhood.
MR. KLATZKOW: And was there any other reason?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I would say the same. I'm very
concerned about the density and intensity on Tract B.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, this case is over with.
We appreciate all your time and thank you from the residents, and
Tony Pires and Richard for all your cooperation, and the church. We
got through it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your patience.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, with that, instead of going into a
new case, we're going to take a lunch till 12:30. We'll come back here
at 12:30 after lunch and we'll resume the cases at that time. Thank
you.
(Luncheon recess.)
Item #9B, #9C and #9D
PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13664, PORT OF THE ISLANDS
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Page 109