Agenda 04/28/2009 Item #17C
i!ern t'~o. 17C
."pri! 28, 2009
?ac9 1 of 36
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
V A-2008-AR-13977 Tim Chess of McDonalds USA, LLC, represented by Jeffrey
Satfield of CPH Engineers, Inc., is requesting a Variance from the landscape
requirements of Land Development Code Suhsection 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements,
in the General Commercial (C-4) and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict
(GTMUD-MXD), to allow a modification of the required 7.S-foot wide buffer on the
western side of the property; and to reduced buffer widths on the property's
northern side from 15 feet to ten feet, the eastern side from 7.5 feet to five feet, and
the southern side from 10 feet to five feet. The 0.1'l6-acre suhject property is located
at 2886 Tamiami Trail East, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) consider the above-referenced Variance
petition and render a decision pursuant to Section 9.04.04 of the Land Development Code
(LDC) in order to ensure that the project is in hannony with all applicable codes and
regulations and that the community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
The petitioner is requesting the following fClur Variances from the Land Development
Code (LDC) Subsection 4.06Ji2, ButTer Requirements, to:
1. Reduce the minimum] 5-foot Type '"D" buffer width to 10-feet on thc property's
northern boundaty;
2. Reduce the minimum 7.5-foot Type "A" huffer width on the eastern side to 5-feet;
3. Reduce the minimum 10-j(lOt Type "D" bufTer width on the southern side to 5-
feet; and
4. Modify the minimum 7.5-foot wide Typc "A" buffcr requirement on thc wcstern
side of the propcliy by providing fivc, 10- foot wide landscape islands.
,-
The existing McDonald's restaurant owncr has had a lease with Gulf Gate Plaza for the
subject property since 1973. On June i 0, :2008, the Goard of County Commissioners
(BCC) approved a Final Plat (FP-2008-AR-12928) submitted by the applicant to create
an outpareel for the property within the shopping centcL The objective of this re-plat was
to allow the fast-f(JOd chain to build a new restaurant on the created outparcc1 under its
own site development plan (SDP), as Gulf Gate Plaza, being one parcel, would have
otherwise had to come in under the same SDP, thereby triggering the need for the entire
shopping center to be brought up to current LDC standards in tenllS of building
architecture, parking lot islands, transitional screening, buffers, et cetera. Although
during the re-plat the new nutparccl's size was maximized to the greatest extent
possible--from a 0.84-acre iease lImit area tLl a 1I.86-aere outparcel-the applicant's site
is stiii not able to meet LDC requirements t(>r 7.5-j(lOt wide Type A landscape buffers
V A-2008-AR- 13977
Apri12,2009
'.,-
~:3 'q
between separately platted commercial tracts, as required pursuant to TaMe 2.4, footnote
three, of LDe Subsection 4J16.02.CA, TaMe of Buffi!r Requirements hv Land [Jse
Classljica/IolL Nor is it able to provide the required 15-filot wide buffer along its US-41
right-of-way, pursuant to Subsection 4J)6J12.CA, Alternative D, consisting of trees
spaced a minimum of 30 feet on center, underplanted with a 36-inch double hedgerow of
shrubbery spaced three fcct on centcr.
As shown on the site plan, entitled "McDonald's Site Dimension Plan," prepared by CPH
Engineers, Inc., and dated December 2008, as revised through February I], 2009, the
new 3,827 square-foot restaurant building would be situated parallel to US-4I. Access to
the site would be afforded via one access point on LJS-4I, and two points along the
southem boundary of the site (one of which would be egress only). Along the site's US-
41 rrontage the applicants propose to prO\.ide a total of 15 feet of buffer width in two
separate locations: ] 0 feet of width would be located immediately adjacent to US 41, and
an additional five feet of width would be located in a landscape island running the length
of the entire drive-through aisle on the front side of the building, to further screen
queuing vehicles from view of US 4] (see Exhibit A to the resolution). The purpose of
providing these two buffer yards is to allow the applicants to achieve the intent of a Type
B buffer, a further requirement of LDC Section 5.05.08, Architectural and Site Design
Standards, which prohibits dlive-throughs adjacent to roadways unless Type B buffer
plantings are provided within the requisite buffer widlh. In urder to meet the intent of a
15- foot wide buffer yard, the applicants amended their previously approved parking
deviation (APR-2008-AR-13978) to ailow ji)r a further p8rking reduction of 8 spaces.
(Staff was amenable to this reduction due to the abundance of existing parking spaces
within Gulf Gate Plaza, and thc shared parking agreemcnt the applicant has with the
plaza's owner.) By doing so, the applicants could elinlinate spaces previously proposed
on the southern side of the huilding, thereby creating suHicient space to shift the
building's footprint south\\'urd.
As depicted on the Master Plan, where no buffer was previously required along the
outparee!'s western boundary, five landscape islands are proposed instcad of the required
7.5-filOt widc linear buffer. By virtue of this design, parking spaces eould be retained
along this houndary while still allowing planting areas of various sizes for the LDC-
required plant materials. Finally, aiong the perimeter of the site's southern and e8stern
boundaries, five-f(lot wide buffers would he provided instead of the required 7.5-foot
width. A landscape 8rea would also sun.ound the base of the huilding in order to provide
the requircd foundation piantings.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this VarianCt~ petition \\'l)uld have no n~('al inlpad on Collier CClLmty.
GROWTH MA'\'AGEMENT PLA.N (GMP) IMPACT:
Approval of this Varl:!!1c(' u,,()tdd nut affect 1'1' change the requirerncnts of the GrvlP.
VA-2008-AR-l.J977
April ?,' 2009
2
".....
-.....! ---.-'
_.")
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT:
Approval of this Variance would have no affordable housing impact
EI\'VIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
There are no environmental issues associated with this Vanance.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC did not review this petition as they do not nonnally hear Variance petitions.
COVNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The cepc heard petition VA-2008-AR-13977 on April 2, 2009, and believing that
approving the Variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimcntal to the
public welfare, voted unanimously (9-0) to forward this petition to the RZA with a
recommcndation of approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Thc VaJianccs approved are strictly limited to the landscape buffer width
requircments as depicted on the applicant's conceptual site plan (Exhibit A), entitled,
'"Site Dimension Plan, prepared by CPH Engineers, lnc., dated Decembcr 2008, as
revised through February 11, 2009; and as further depicted in the landscape plan,
entitled '"McDonald's, Naples, Collier County, Florida" dated April 1,2009 (Exhibit
A- 1), as further restricted below.
2. The five-foot buffer width Variance granted is limited to the northern, US-41
property boundary, as depicted in the conceptual site plan included as Exhibit A, to
allow a reduction of the 15-foot wide butTer requirement:
3. The 2.5-foot butTer width Variance granted is limited to the eastern propeliy
boundary, as depicted in the conceptual site plan included as Exhibit A, to allow a
reduction of the 7.5-foot wide butTer requirement;
4. The 5-f()()t bufTer width Valiance granted is limited to the southem propeliy
boundary, as depicted in the conceptual site plan includcd as Exhibit A, to allow a
reduction of the 1 O-f()ot wide buffer requirement:
5. The 7.5-foot huffer width Variance granted is limited to the western propeliy
boundary, as depicted in the conceptual site plan included as Exhibit A, to allow five,
1 O-foot minimum width landscape buHers.
VA-2008-AR- i 3977
April 2. 2009
3
ii:em LJO, i'
April 28, 2 C9
PEI,;]S.! '_; ::~:)
6. All the plant materiais required by the LDC for screening and butfering shall be
accommodated to the extent feasible in the modi tied and/or reduced width buffers'
respective areas, in locations to bc approved by the County Landscape Architect
7. Irrespective of that shown on the conceptual site plan included as Exhibit A, the
proposed use shan be required to comply with the Architectural and Site Design
Standards of LDC Section 5.05.08 and all other applicable regulations at the time of
site development plan (SDP) review and approval.
Because this decision was unanimous, and no letters of objection were received from the
community, this item is being placed on the summaIY agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERA nONS:
The petitioner is requesting a Variance from the setback requirement with respect to
landscape buffer widths. The granting of such Variances is pemlitted under LDC Section
9.04.02. The attached staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission are
advisory only and are not binding on you. Decisions regarding Variances are quasi-
judicial, and all testimony given must be undcr oath. Petitioners have the burden to prove
that the proposed Variance is consistcnt with all the criteria set forth below, ,md you may
question the petitioners or staff to assure yourself that the necessary criteria have been
satistied. Should you consider denying the Variance. to assurc that your dccision is not
later found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or unrcasonablc; the denial must be based upon
competent, substantial evidence that thc proposal does nolmeet one or more of the listed
criteria below. Approval of this request requires three atlin11o.tive votes of the Board. In
granting any Variance, the BZA may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in
conformity with the zoning code, including. but not limited to, reasonable time limits
within which action for which the Variance is required shall be begun Of completed, or
both. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a pa11 of the tenns under
which the Variance is granted, would be deemed a violation of the zoning code. -STW
Criteria for Val'iances
1. There are special conditions and circumstances existing whieh arc peculiar to the
location, size, and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved.
2. There are special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of
the applicant, such as pre-cxisting e(lnditions relative to the property whieh is the
subject of the Vatiance request
3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the L DC work unnecessary and undue
hardship on the applicant or create practical difticultics on the applieant
4. The Variance, if grantcd, will he the minimum variance that wiii make possible the
reasonable use of thc land, building, or structure and which promote standards of
health, safety, Of weltarc.
5. Granting the Variance rcquested will not confer on the petitioncr any special privilege
that is denicd by these zoning rcgujations to other jands, buildings. or structures in the
smne zoning district.
VA-2008-AR-13977
Aprit 2. 2009
4
:."..,11.
r,,,
~0, '::',;
) ;;~ :;
6. Granting the Variancc will be in harmony with thc intcnt and purpose of the LDC, and
not bc injurious to the neighborhood, or othcrwise detJimcntal to the public welfarc.
7. There are natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals
and objectives of the regulation, such as natural prcserves, lakcs. golf course, etc.
8. Granting the Variance will be consistent with the G\1P.
The proposed Resolution was prepared by the County Attorney's Office and is sufficient
for Board action. -JAK
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve Petition V A-2008-AR-
]3977, subject to the conditions of'approval that have been incorporated into the attached
resolution.
PREPARED BY:
John-David Moss, AlCP, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
V:\-200R-1-\R-13977
April 2. 2009
5
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
I at;~ 1 UI .:.
l:eiTi rlo :, \.....
::'1",3
(_II ~",'3
COLLIER COUNTY
~i,':JhRD OF :()UNTY COMMlSS~ONERS
I"~
'v
This ,tem r:::~quir9s t~8t 311 participants be sworn in an::! ex ~)arte dlsclos'Jre be provided by
Co~"nmiSS!Dn msmbers V_A,-20C:8-lR-13977 Tim Chess of rJlcDonalds USA LLC, represented
L"y Jeffrey Satfleld of Cf-:->H En-;w,ee:.s, Inc, is requesting a Varianc.e from the jandscape
requirements of Land De\'8Iopment Code SUl;section 4C'602, Buffer RE:quirements, in tile
Generai COIllIT'erciai (C-4) and GatE:\Nay Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTfV1UD-MXD) to
silo\lva modification of tire reqlwed 7 5-foot w'de buffer on the westeln side of the property:
and to reduced buffer 'iv'ldths on the propei't}-'s northe'Ti Side fW:Il ~5 feet to ten feet. the
89stern siC'e fro:l1 7_~l teet 10 fl'.'8 reel, anj the 3C)utiv:;~'n s~de fr.')m 10 feet to five feet The
O_t:6-acre subject property is located at 2836 Tamiam: ],311 C83t in Section 11, Township 50
SOJHl Range 25 East, Collier- County, Florida., C:TS
4l;?EL'2D':)S: 9:00JO ;:d..1
Prepared B)-'
John-David f..1oss
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Senior Planner
Date
Zoning & Land Devebpment
4f4i2C09 12:56:29 PM
Approved B)'
Ray Bellows
Community DeveJoprn!:!nt &
Environmental Services
Chief Planner
Date
Zoning & Land D8velo;:>iHe[lt R..o'\rjCI/\/
4/(;:::009 1 54 PM
Approvl'd B:r
Judy Pufg
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Orer;Jt[ons Anaiyst
u;;te
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
4/7:Za-(l912:18 PM
Appro\'ed By
Steven Wmiams
Attorney's Office
.L_sslstant County At!:o:-nf:Y
Date
Attorney's Office
4,'13/2009 i :35 PM
Approved By
Susan lstenes, Arcp
Community Dev.~lopment &
EnvE!"('.nm'2'nta! Senrit,,;s
Zonirtg & Land Dsve:cmrllent [Jiro::ctor
Date
Zoning & Land Dev€,l'-,p:m;nt ReVIElW
"~/13/2DQ9 5:00 PfJi
Approved B:r
Jeff Klatzkovlf
County Attaro;ey
County t.,tto-rney
D~te
C::;.ur:ty' Attorney Offtce
4";5/200910:37 AM
Apprn\'t'd By
Joseph K. Schrr::tt
Community De-v'J!opment &.
::::!V!t',:>pr!1S'f'tal S';;l"vi."."'S
C:-;:nmun:ty Development &
Environmental ServicE'S Admj"str;+';nr
Czte
C~;llnwnity Dev21o-p:n~nt &.
E""V!'~lll~,~~nt,: ~ ::<:~\' ,,"'~ luj,-,;,~.
lL~5/2003 3:15 PM
Appnnl'u By
01'.,':5 Coordinator
orV;8 Cool"dfna((.'r
Date
::::Ol:n:y ~L,:,: 9",-'5 Of'::~e
F ,.;. ~
:;e;m:;nt Z~ 3ud~Ft
-.,;'; 7 ':~ ~IS' , ,
i',^
"he,
'\rrnl\'fJ B~'
Randy Greenwa~d
County r,',ar;ager's Oni:e
r~';allagS'm8nt;BudgL't Ana!\,,,~t
J3te
Office of r";;U"iCI:;J'2[m:nt & Eh!dgct
4/1"1';2009 2:08 PiJl
Arrnrnd BJ'
Leo E. Ochs" Jr.
Board of County
Commissioners
De~vty County fv":Z,:--,2;10r
Date
Co~m~y iini1'~<;er's Office
4/18;2009 1 :~3 pr'J'l
r dce.;;. UI ..:..
i,2;]
..,f ii~3..2 Jj
>3
L;,genda ilen-l ;'Jo '17'C
!\C [I! DI','''ITi,'i\lt1J. fJ;O()9
Pa Y:: 8 c.,f :;6
COnney C01!/lHty
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF 70NING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVlRONlvlENT AL SERVICES
DIVISION
HEARING DATE: MARCH 19,2009
SUBJECT:
VA-2008-AR-I3977, McDONALD'S GULF GATE PLAZA VARIANCE
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT:
Owner:
Shaul Rikman, Manager
Gulfgaie Plaza, LLC
South 500 Dixie Highway
HalIandale Beach, FL 33009
Agcnt Jeffrey SaifieJd, P.E.
CPH Enginccrs, Inc.
2216 Ahamont A vcnue
Fort Myers, FL 3390 I
Applicant Tim Chess
McDonlad's USA, LLC
] 0 150 Highland Manor Drive, Suite 470
Tampa, FL 33610
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County PlmUling Commission (CCPC) consider four (4) Variances from the
Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 4.06.02, Bz,(fer Requirements, to:
L Reduce the minimum 15-1lJOt Type "D"' buffer width (0 10-fcci on the property's
northern boundary;
2, Reduce the minimum 7j-foot Type "A" butfer width on the eastern side (0 S-feet;
3. Reduce the minimum IO-foot Typc "D" buffer width on the southern side to 5-fcct; and
4. Modify the minimum 7.5-foot wide Type "i\" buffer requircment on the western side of
the property by providing Jive, ] O-foot wide landscape islands.
mWGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The 0.86-acre subject property is located at 2886 Tamiami Trail East (LlS-41), approximately
300 fcct \Vcst of the Bayshorc Drive/Shaclowlawn Drivc intersection, ill Section I I, Towllship 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (see /oC(/!ionmof! onlheliJ//OIFing jJogef
VA.201IR-,:\f{-L1977
Pag81
U:2'.::?
~5:':
':"JC)
0:0 'J)
Z("\J C'
c:= 2'
Q.) '- '"
~ ::::l.Q..
-<(
'5
'"
en
<:
=i"::Ti=" <+ ~~C{:r=CiT[~lr~T,7,T:i'";~:,,"7~~:-::-~O]::
i J "} , ,~ [-r -II I IJ 111 'irr"i' I 1 ';--.0:.'7 ( frr;, ,:l
,:,- - ,~ -: I ' ] 11+1 'rri-j 'C,l'~-'I-J~'7fl~~' ., "-J .~:~ .:::2
~.~ r_ ~~g L _I l I I J --1 --LLJ U0 ("(0 .-t~
"i i~~ ~~'IJI'G:tt_[w~\lI'o~:;~~~..I?/:,~';~; ;-j -:'.: 'I:;: :-li ;'I~~-~'~:
,.,. I II' I ~ 5 ~) ti6 / /_."- ~ ~~t\!'l Y"!~i~ "~7-~)
r.: UJ 0 -- ..: Vl / /'-__ L.Ll --L.LLJ_ LL_L.LJ
-,"" ""':""~[n "r--;~-~~'~~"T'rr t
~_ ~ i / - ~ I , I i.L
. L 1m, , ,,,: + ~
Lib 1m';:, 31.' , 7 - --
f!= '. . ;.':: i ,~ l_ t::~
1 ''C, ... . ~_lfL, i_L_....w ,L ..:; ==-.I ,. '.,
JnNJA ~ m~\ll3t~ld i =';~ I - ~ J
'-1 I "'T""T""'TII G' '/ ///~.. 'i T;jh~
~ttt!tmY-Y 'r I IJ '-I ":~~
bF"~ :;';, v . - '. 1: ~E;) - -t ~
ll. ~ --t)=-~~-i>-_--'-"v.,f/ ~i ;::: ::'J G
-I -p- -l ""~'/ r::.--
-';['~~=--' )- r~'~-~ ~ ~~F=r~ R ~ _o_~
l ~J~v;/ L-=::::r ..t--;~'---J Ii I ] t:::Jfj :::=j . ~
~_. L___;:, -----,----.-L_j~ J - n " _-" 3"d
~"
;L'
.,~," "" / 'J;L,
.....&1i!J' ii!fl_'
I~/' I' ", ~ ' ~ ".~ I" //
, ./ . ". -II '>;,. 'I "" ',"'" ~lk1l" I I"' :;z'''''' 0 'I. .-/,'
/ / )[! ',~" ,,~!O' ." B f '---"~I i ' , " ~c i ,e
-' '/ fl - _ ~ > ~\ ,J \ " ?,~I 1-
- -;:.~~" '-'[51,:' :~-=:"o.1 _or1---:-J'-1100; "jJ :, ~;ll#,/PI /-'u
. . .3 '" '- '" - '" '!:'!:"~~I . f W ~ 118 b J" ( ;/'"
!;l R~; ! 1-;;;:;,-;:;, .,.,.,..",,!l ~-:~:--:--' ~C, . ,; ~i ~~.~~ 7/ "'
~ ' , _.- ;; I J' ;; .', ,;~ .;:}>" I
~ cr,~~ r'~l\"'." -,:. ~ b <3 ~ -'--~,I L;;;')ij V g
~"""rr J -" i.' I~~,,~ -- ,//--.11;
, ' ".)~,,,,:..., '-' ~ > '/ \
, _~~.. -~ I ~:;O::o~~ ",.",/., '
1 __~' '" '--' ~I 11"1 i n.O 8[ j .,,;:;-;.-y ~ I
l r I. I d l~ fl,I...1 ~..;ll. ~,![ ;'.~r.,',. "
;[" g' I' ?1;<:<S',1 ,/) 111'1' "g!\", ',i;;; r :
I >:" --uLg~ f~ 'l I .---:.-~'--- /./' re, '< tJ~
",,;,', ~.~ I-!- 'l:;~ 5"-,,) I ,~fJl 'I ~~ } - ~~}
. UL~ <,','\"d'~ '",' -j": r 1__ _ ,~~ i"1J.1 '---;", ~g', )',- u_~ _~~I
II, F'l '. Y;:l' !\j l:jl IJhlll1 I,! I ,J
['11 :!, a;y.,~y~"t?. ij "l .'\ ,,/~;'i)';;\ -~I ,c;cA",.o;"--'.~H-~.11 '. oJ' I.. I 1
- ~;~~., "~c.//':}>" ~ I'~_' ~,l ~~ I,!~ ~._., '";11i ;.J .
L"'\' ;0' 'I, '"~ ,.0___ ,-<lo, -.
i~"~I: "" I liT'" i. ,~,," I"
I': I !i. "; ~'~ / ., ':\ 1 . ",;E'."fT:(~l! i ,,,
"] ~.. Lid=~i>~11[LM~J~U~'~~j~)~~~t~0,_i\,,~:~0 J'
- ".'j'll ,oo,,,,,,,,,,,,.,..,,.,,,m." \r !.r-''1.'n'-I__."f;/>:5I~:;:--.'\(01 ,j "-0
.0~cl~._-.'.,c.",0~J. ...I(}) ....:..~ \=?'j r-il.' '''~-:=/(J'i;-=?~I ; \71 ,;
I c'...,,-c,;'-='-,~,'-"I-"<'" OlllJ \ l'~~:={: ,.l C~_--' /~/I, .---:Jl.J,.J4 /-
rc.'--~--I~~--~-~ -j;\;aiJ- ~-IJd~~'::!C;;:dlll 1'.;,,;:7
~' I .. I tit 1 .L--~~' \,- ]
\\ 51 (( pJc..!) .J. .
~.,,~ .'~':~~-~~]---'"_.-
_ -~,1 _._... "~ __~ _~~"""'"""__~.~"=
,
0,
!
Il
<(
:2:
(9
Z
Z
o
N
e-
e-
m
'"
I
no
'"
ro
~I
N
'"
>
"
z
o
f-
>-
W
Q
Il
<(
:2:
z
o
I-
<(
o
o
-.J
s:~~
~~0
I~
- "
~'~~
-<{o.
m
'2
GJ
:oJ
<(
11I-~; -._.."-~:I'
1 ~~ l:lI ; 1 1 S:~ ~
S !j;: ",(iOnl ;d~,
~ 1'1: I~;::l'.".i d..".
~ an ~;o'~tlJ}nr'
! i !!!
'II 1111d!1
I- . q: ~ ~i !~,
~ ! ~ II ~ t~ .r.
-' I: r! J i;H
5 it i .H! t~ ~~!
z H i W:: ~1 p~
~ if. ~n i. .~ ~t!
~l ;' {~l Sj !~ m
I: it gi~: H!:i
j!!!,(;,;i1iii!
:! n iH ii i~ ,1:
----.oIIII(~Z--cz!llI
'I
,.
"I
i ~ u
l.rr
,IIi'
,...J
., t ~.
if i ~t It'.
B d! H ~
H f H It ~
.,,! U d I
Ii I;: ~! i
H lH H!
in! P
~; ! in ~~ I
:~l
:.1
.. :j=~=~-~~~=-~~~t~;~~ ~....~
r---j" o;;D' ~:.~
"1.....;;:~~~_
j
~
H
q
H f!
q j!
l! ~ ~
~l I j
;" .
;H~hnHA, L~~~~~ <fi
, ~:"iif~!~uH;);;:;{~~~i!
~ l mmmmmmm!~!
;: ~ 1lIIIPd~'~l!~'fll~!h
8 { !1!;.d~1;~W;..~n~nH
Ii. ! ,q,",h.~H~li'jhl';~bt~
1\. ql"".ti.~ ;;'r<I~~'H
~ 1 jl~H;H;;! !\!!tt,{~kr
~ i Hi~Hj;!~lm!i;;:l)IH~
I. ! Hi\~~d.~I~H~"~~~lkl'!
~,ri' l;'l:~lr;h'f'""H,
\~L,t?l~trl ;H:r-/U.~'~~
.,'H"i,'; l!:t!iUIY'ft'~
; ~l:f~~I~1 ~Hii~ i~!)~hn
,
;;j-
p
a
,r
ij
.,
i; Ii) ~ ~; .
'I' ~t~:~li!i!;i!!;i 1
Hiidl~!i~ W L M
n :;rt~.. ~ S; :J II ~ ,IJ rl!. 11 H .!
~w
;;: ~;
Ii
"
11
',;{
Hi
tHI
h."""
dH
rm!
nm
b~\
~;
.H
IH
! ~g
ii:~
ii;
1m
..rf
Hti
rji~q
;'.j ~,
:i;iH
~l ";" l
~HE
.. Ii
I' '
g 11
~ 1.,.1 .! ..
OJ i'i-;:~ t :H
'l l~
;1 )
!I l' t!.~,"
,i ~ Hl,~
\>"
'"
.1.. ,,/
,,<,Q.~"'
~~ I, ,}"
,-;?:.:-.. o~
v-\' .<,
.;:;. \;::--.d"
" =,\ <,'
-\' ,~
0. ,;S .~~
;y A..' $-.1
\'c,.mnJ 'J.lImo;:. h',l'llD:>
).SV'J,lV1I111'NII';....J. q~~Z
's.[;)nl'i"l1.!@Ol~t!,W
rIV},) rlOl~ID:'/la ~llS
,i ~
g Q
ti ;:
>, ,
r '
'! 1
, ,
hiS
~I E
~: ~
:! ~
i ~ 3
~,! I 0
i ~ I"
t,
,
it
"
i
,
~!
! ' ,
~ r ~ j
) 7." ~
~ ; d~
! ; Hll
t ; ~ !;. q
1':''''
'1'
I
I ~
,~ 7
11 In! I
~! WI . ~
:! d~.! ~~ ~
:' "f,1 y~ ;::
HdHi H ~
idWIH.
1 ~pm~in
,
g
,
,
,
1
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
:::i... lJ
'Jot'"'
,
~ : ~
" ; f ~ j !
lli;I'1111
li?~~ I;
!!t:~ ' '!~
!
"
[
~ !
~ I
!
,f
Hi:::
~il[!j!\ 111 ,
,1""1" i'" ..i
l'l!HmH!!H\I!
: i ~, ;;~"IP ~lJ" u(9GS
dH
!1"1"0
~I~ !
~liPii
cd!!
;"'"
s ~I'.~
"
"
~V
,. ~.
~~
~;;
m3
'8
of'
U
""
~9
0:>0
"It;
,,'<'
(/)
"
"
.--:1
,
1
"
,
~
11
,
~;
,\1
gi ~
:;;,f
'I'
<1'1' , ,
'I I!'
~,~ !, e ~
~Il 1 ! !
'DODO
l ~ u
'Ia
; n;
II i
H~
,.
.,
~h
,; ~.
!!.
:n
m
(gl
?f t
_~il~H
~ Cj!; i!::J! t~
j~m -r-j~
'l!'i..!i..,@!!,;'i'
~. U':r:'
L~~.
-.J
"
o
,,\?
':;4
;;~
g;
":i
";<-
"<-'
,
~: :,;
~:i
'-''-'
~
"
,
,8
I
_J
":1- <'A' 'Ti 1'<).
;'fjl ii 28. 2 ,"<I
~ 3~;e 11 ;) :.,:3
l'URI'OSEIDESCRIl'T10N OF REOUEST:
The existing McDonald's restaurant owncr has had a lease with Gulf Gate Plaza for the subject
propcl1y since 1973. On June] 0, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners (BCe) approved a
Final Plat (FP-2008-AR-12928) submitted by the applicant to create an outparccl for the property
within the shopping center. The objective of the re-plat was to allow the fast-food chain to build
a new restaurant on the created outparce] under its own sile development plan (SDP), as the
shopping center, being one parcel, would have otherwise hml to come in under the same SDP,
thereby triggering the need for thc entire Gulf Gate Plaza to be brought up to current LDC
standards to thc greatest extent feasible in terms of building architecture, parking lot islands,
transitional screening, buffers, ct cetera. Although during the re-plat the new outpareel's size was
maximized 10 the greatest exlenl possible-i,.om a O.R4-acre lease limit area to a 0.R6-acre
ourparcel-the applicant's sile is still not able to meet Counly requirements for 7.5-iaot wide
Type A landscape buffers between separately platted commercial tracts. as required pursuant to
](,ble 2. -I, footnote three. of LDC Subsection 4.06.02.C.4, Tohle of Buffer Requirements by Land
Use Clossifico/ion. Nor is it able to provide the required 15-foot wide buffcr along its US-4]
right-of-way, pursuant to Suhsection 4.0(i.()2.C.4, ill/emotive D, consisting of trees spaced a
minimum of 30 /"eet on center, underplanted "ith a 36-inch double hedgerow o/" shrubbery
s]laced three feet on center.
According to LDC Section 9.04.02, 7)j)"s ofT/ariances ,'lulhorized, a Variancc may be requestcd
iar any dimcnsional developmcnt slandard, including the dimensional aspects o/"]andscaping and
bunering requirements. /Is such, the applicant is proposing to rebuild the existing restaurant,
whieh would require Variances 1i-om tbe dimensional mea of the required IS-foot Type "D"
buffer width to 10-feet along the prope11y's northern boundary with US-41; to reduce the
Ininiml1111 7.5-foot Typ~ "A': buffer width on the eastern properly side to 5-fcct; to reduce the
minimum IO-foot Type "I)" buffer width on the southern side to 5-fcct; and to modify the
ininimwTJ 7.5-f~~)ot \\:jde Type "A~l buffer requirernenl un ihe western ;)iJe or the property [0
provide Jive, ] O-loot wide (minimum) parking lot islands instead of one continuous buffer to
accommodate Type "A" buffer material. All of the plant materials that would normally be
rcquired by LDC-compliant buffers would bc planted within tbese modiiled buffer arcas to the
extcnt feasible, \vhich the County Landscape architect has detertnined to be aim os!, if no!, ]OD
percent
As shown on the site plan, entitled ")v1cDonal(1' s Site Dimension Plan," prepared by CPlI
Engineers, ]nc., and dated December 2008, as revised tlHough February 1],2009, the new 3,827
square-foot restaurant building would be situated parallel to US-41. Access to the site would be
an()rdcd via one access point on LS-41, and two points along the southern boundary of the site
(one of which would be egress only). Fourlccn diagonal parking spaces would he provided along
the site's US-41 !hlJ1tage; 15 pc'pendicul:1r spaces would be located along its western boundary;
~lnd three handicap spaces \vould be loc;;1tcd on the S0ut!l';\,cstcrn side of the building, nt its front
entrance. Normally 33 parking spaces would be requir.cd by the LDC for a restaurant of this size.
hov.e\'cr. the applicant applied for and was granted an administrativc parking reduction (APR-
200g-AR..13lJ78) on J)LTclnbcr 24. 100x, hased on the iarge .'ii/c uf the existing parking area
\vithll1 (Ju;f G~~te Pbza. \\'hich \\~lS d~~med ~l(.Ieqltu.te to addre:;s (lny potentia] parking sh0l1fall;
and the applicunt"s desjp~ to maximiz.e the landscaping (..)[1 tbe site 10 the gre~1test e:~1ent fi.:asible
as pmt of the redevelopment of the restaurant site.
\'/\-2D06-;\R-13~177
F';:J;;c 2
<12 i:-:::n-t ['.JO. i7C
28.2CCJ9
-:2 cif ~;,G
As depicted on the !I,laster Plan, where no buffer was previously required along the outparcel's
western boundary, five landscape islands arc now proposed instead of the required 7.5-foot wide
linear buffer. By virtue of this design, ] 5 existing parking spaces could be retained along this
boundary while still allowing planting areas of various sizes for the LDC-required plant
materials. Aiollg the perimeter of the site's southern and eastern boundaries, five-foot wide
bufTers would be provided instead of the required 7j-foot width; and adjoining the US-41 right-
ot~way, a buffer 10 feet in width is proposed instead of the requircd15-foot width. /\ landscape
area would also surround the base of the building in order to provide the required fClLllldation
pi anti ngs.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North:
East:
South:
West:
US-41 right-of-way, then a commercial use; zoned C-4.
Gulf Gate Plaza parking lot; zoned C-4 and GTMUD-MXD
Gulf Gate Plaza parking lot; zoned C-4 and GTMUD-MXD
Gulf Gate Plaza parking lot, then Mobil station; zoned C-4 and GTMUD-MXD
AERIAL VIEW
(;ROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (Fl.UE): The subject property is designated Urban Mixed Use District,
Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future l.and Use Map of the GMP. Properties within this
designation are meant to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses. The site
is also located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, the purpose of which
is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/CJateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. The
GMP docs not address individual Variance requests but [ocuses on the larger issue of the actual
use. The proposed c01111ncrcial Lise on th~ site 1S consistent \vith the Urhan Residential Subdistrict
and is, therefore, deemed consistent wilh the GivlP.
VA-200S-I\I{-I.~<)TI
P<lge 3
~ ::1 i:,~iT ~!, i i l.,
ANAL YSIS:
Section 9.04.0 I of thc loDe gives thc Jioard of Zoning Appeals (I3ZA) the authority to grant
variances. The cere is advisory to the BZ/\ and utilizes the provisions of Subsection 9.04.03 A.
through II., in bold font below, as general guidelines to assist in making a recommendation of
approval or denial. Staff has amllyzed this petition relative to these provisions, and offers the
following:
a. Arc thcl'c spccial conditions and circulllstanccs existing, which arc pcculiar to the
location, size and characteristics of the land, structure 01' building involved?
Yes. The existing IvlcDonald's restaurant has been in operation at this location in Gulf
Uate Plaza since 1973. Because the entire shopping center was platted as one parcel, the
applicants arc unable to rcdevelopthc rcstaurant without invol\'ing the owner and the rest
of the shopping center tenants. Desiring to modcrnize their rcstaura11l even though the rest
of the center is eitber unwilling or unable to do likewise, the applicant re-platted the site as
a separate outparcel in June of 2008. However, <lccording to the applicant, constraints
posed while attempting to align the boundaries of the neIV outparcel with the existing
conditions of the plaza made it difficult to acquire the complete area needed to achieve the
minimum bulTer widths required by the LDC between separately platted tracts and along
arterial roadways.
b. Are thcre special conditions and Cil'Ctllllstances, which do not result from the action of
the applicant stich as pre-nisting conditions relative to the property, which is the
subjcct of the Varianec ,-eqtlcst?
Yes, there are pre-existing conclitions that clo not result li.om the action of the applicant
The properly was originally platted as part of rhc Gulf Gate Plaza shopping center. As
such, in spite of heing situated in the Bayshore/Uatcway Triangle Redevelopment Area,
the applicant is unable to redevelop the site and bring it up to current LDC standards unless
the rest of the shopping center is similar]y rcdevelopecL ;\s previously noted, the owner of
the shopping center \Vas either unwii]ing or unable to amlrd to upgrade the c11lire site, so
the applicants attempted to resolve their dilemma by severing the restaurant site ii.om the
rest of the shopping center parcel through the re-plat process, which then triggered the
LDe requirement for hulTers hetween separately planed tracts. UnfOltlll1ately, because of'
the shopping center's existing parking lot design. the owner W3S unwilling to expand the
limits oC the newly "reated outpmcel1Jeyond (U;6 acres to allow the applicants to provide
the required buller widths. As such, the applicant was I()feed to seck tbe proposed
Variances.
"
"
Vv'ill a literal interpretation of the provision!; of this zoning code Yfork unnecessary
and undue hardship on the applicant or creatc praciical difficulties for the applicant'!
Yes. A literal interpretation of the LDC provisions would create a practical dinieulty ]c)r
the applicJlnS by preventing their ~lbility to rcdc\'clop their site, \\"hich is proposed Cor the
rl'qn('h;C',,:>~{' C'IYl",ll.,,-C't }',-'('1'-;)11I''"1,,1 fl""l' "In" It ,..h""lA ,.,1,,^ h..... ,~,;+",rl 11...",+ ,I-I~~ .".)"j",,,..,,~j ;,.
~...'uv...."'.. _, .""U""','L .'-".HUL"~UH L<~,'UL l.n"tJ.. ~, "Hl'-.'''..... UhlV v.... UU'l,..\-1 (lIL(l l11.... l.....:>~~I..."(Uj~ J....,
situated in the l3ayshore/(;atc\\3)' Triangle reckvelopmcnt mea, whose sole purpose is to
rcvitaJi/c this (\rea c:!'the counlv.
V..\-1(j[)8.:'>.l{.I~':J.i7
1"\l~lC:: 4-
::21n )';0 i 7C
:':-3. 2JIJ9
;=:':;:';";::'~:){ =:6
d. Will the Variances, if granted, he the minimum Variances that will make possible the
reasonable nse of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of
health, safety and welfare?
Yes. The Variance requested would be the minimum to make possible the reasonable use
of the outparecl site, which the applicant has occupied since 1973. The proposed 3,827
square-foot building is one of the applicant's smallest prototypes and, in fact, is a 500
square-loot reduction compared to the existing building, thereby allowing the new building
(unlike the old one) to be planted with foundation plantings. Additionally, the proposal
would close an existing access point to US-41 in the northeast comer of the site, which
would be partially rcplaced by a landscape island; and install new landscaped parking lot
islands where none presently exist along the site's western boundary. As a resolt of these
changes, the overall impervious area of the site would be reduced by 4,925 square-feet (or
from 79,8 percent of the site to 66.6 percent of the site). Compared to these conditions on
the site, al1 of the proposed changes would enhancc the standards of health, safety and
welfare,
e. \lV'ill granting the Variances confer on the applicant any spceial privilege that is
denied by thesc zoning regulatiuns to uther lands, buildiugs, 01' structlll'es in the same
zoning dish'ict?
No. A Variance by definition confers some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations
specific to a site. However, as previously noled, tDC Section 9.04.02 provides reiief
through the Variance process for any dimensional development standard, including the
dimensional aspects of landscaping and buffering requirements. As such. other prop CIties
facing a similar hardship would be entitled to make a similar Variance request and would
be conferrcd equal consideration, Furthermore, as noted, the site is located within an almost
40'year old shopping center, which poses inherent difficulties for redevelopment in [enns
ofmeeling current LDC devclopment criteria.
6. Will granting the Val"ianc('s b(' in hal'lnony with the g('neral intcnt and pnrpose of this
Land Development Code, and not be injUl'ious tu the neighborhood, 01' othcrwise
detrimental tu the publi(' welfare'!
Yes. LDC Subsection 4.06'()I.A2, Bl![(cring and Screening, slates that the purposc and
intent of landscape buffering and screening is to, among other things:
. Reduce the potential incompatibility of adjacent land uses;
. Maintain open space;
. Enhance community idenlity;
(I Improve lhc aesthetic appcarnl1CC of development;
. Provide physical and psychological benefits to persons through landscaping by
reducing noise and glare;
. Screen and bulfer the harsher yisual ~lspects oi.lu.ban dcyclopmcnt;
. Improve environmental quality by reducing and reyersing air, noise, hcat and
chemical pollution. H and the creation of shade and microclimate: and
\','\.2008-;\1\.-13'-)77
r::>"gc 5
11':~rT, iJn, 1 C
-', i :1 ?3. 2JC!0
:=- ".'
! 'JI
. Reduce beat gain in or on buildings and paved areas tbrough thc' lillcring capacity
oftrccs and vegetation.
As the LDC-rcC[uircd plant matcrials would stiil be provided. albcit in buffer areas that
have either had thcir dimcnsions modified (as along the western boundmy) or reduced in
width (as along the remaining boundaries), the proposed Variance would be harmonious
with these objectives.
g. Are there natural conditions 01' physically induced conditions that ameliorate thc
goals and objectives of thc rcgulation such as natural preSCI"\'CS, lakes, golf courses,
etc. '!
Yes, there arc physically induced conditions that would ameliorate the goals and objectives
of this regnlation, The site is locatcd in an existing shopping center that, at present, has no
screening and bufrering separating the snbject property li.om the other tenants. Therefore,
the addition of butTers, even ones with rcdueed/moditled widths, as proposed with this
application wouid only enhance both the overall aesthetics and the environmental Cjuality of
the shopping ccntcr.
h. 'Viii grnnting the Variances be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
Approval of this Variance petition would not have any atfect on the LiMP. The proposed
use is the same as the existing use, and is permiltecl within the lancluse designation of the
GMP in which it is located. As notcd in the GMP consistency portion or this report the
project is also located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area.
Approval of this VL:riance request would enable the redevelopment of the site, which is
consistent with this (jMP overlay district
ENVIRONMENTAL .\DVlSORY COUNCIL <EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
Thc EAC does not nonna1iy hcar Variance pctitions end didno( hcar this one.
RECOMMENDATION:
StalT recommcnds that thc CCPC forward Petition V A-200B-AR-13977 to the Board of Zoning
>\ppcals (B7A) with a recommendation of approval, suhject to the following conditions:
]. lhe Variances approved are strictly limited to the landscape hurl'cr width reCjuirements as
depicted on the applicant's cOilccptual site plan. entitled "Site Dimension Plan," prepared by
CRI-I Engineers, Inc., c!:tted February 11, 2009, as furlher restrictcd bclow.
2. The 1ive-j(,ot buffer \\idth Variance granted is limited to tlie northern, lIS-41 property
boundary, as depicted in the "Site Dimension Plan.' included as Exhibit i\. to allow a
r:dueticJ1l of the 15-foot wide bolter requirement;
.'., TI~p) "'..I....v,l hllrr.......,. H,;,-hh \,''1'.;'''1{,1-' ITl'clnlprl ;<;' l;n,;Ii~f'l fA th,"" PQc:jpl'll 1"\nH"1l-'l"I" 1.V\111,{-1~)l'V ~,
. ~.".. "-._' '~JU~ U~l..,,-. "".leu ..'~l"U"'''' :;,lC..."'-.... h,' "."'.'-'..... '" ,,'..... ....L~W......H v''-'!',.....'.J '~-'''''''~'~''.J'''~
depicted in tbe "Site Dimension Plan" included c" Exhibit;\, to allow a reduction "rtbe 7.5-
fo,,! wide buUer requirement:
VA-2nOS-AR-l'3'J77
1'3J(; G
;:;:'!,jc; 1:20'; ~.b, 17C
2S, 2~'(i3
c.~ e)f:;o
4. The 5-foot buffer width Variance granted is limited to the southern properl)' boundary, as
depicted in the "Site Dimension Plan" included as Exhibit A, to allow a reduction of the J 0-
foot wide buffer requirement;
5. The 7.5-foot buffer width Variance granted is limited to the western property boundary, as
depicted in the '.Site Dimension Pinn" included as Exhibit A, to allow live. i O-JilOt minimum
width landscape buffers.
6. All the plant materials required by the J.De for screening and buffering shall he
accommodated to the extent feasible in the modified and/or reduced width buffers' respective
nreas, in locations to he approved by the County Landscape Architect
7. Jrrcspeetivc of that shown on the "Site Dimension Plan" included as Exhibit A, the proposed
use shall be required to comply with the Architectural and Site Design Standards of LDC
Section 5.05.08 and all other npplicnble regulations at the time of site development plan
(SDP) revicw and approval.
V 1\-200S-;\R- 13977
Pfl98 l
ia l'~3m !'Jo 7C~
2.3.2C'<!J
'1'" ::)f ~;G
PREPARED BY:
( .i \, " ": ,.? I
, ,I .c -r,.: /
JOHN-DA VID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIP AL PLANNER - n DATE!
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPlvIENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
/' -, .-,j;
.I .._1 ~~~_~..~,,". /:::'2-_:..~J:,/J //~:~, j~1~-~- --'-
RA YMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPAR~rMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPl\,lENT REVIEW
. / I
_~ i'".! ":')
_:!..j_~'_L0.._.! _
! bATE
I' '< I -
'\ ~._~...) I ~'lli.--). n!
)(l),-^..Jl.J./~-" '~/'IY-, . \:s {- Q... '0-.iW -I :2. ~ _ - ~
, SUSAN MURRA Y -ISTENES. AICP. DIRECTOR DAtE I
DEPARTivlENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
"
", ,
.J, J~/....---
,
--:> l ,;i:: .
, . _......J J..J__
? .dO'1
.) I .
DATE
STEVE WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
API'ROVED BY:
,., ./! / ' /
,. t,_>-. ... ~;r / __~); ~"'" I ~-,. J' C;'-
_--.!..~ r..~~:-,_;~.--,;r - ,~~,:..."~.......~,, ...v_--:.,::; ~,...;) ./ l....".... I" I
JOSEPH K, SCHMIlT. ADMINISTRATOR ' DATE
\=O,X,jMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT & FNVIRON,vIENT1\L SERVICES DIVISION
I" ' "
, j
_.~-'---
\ '
.'
,
'. '
-\ !
i
Di\TE
I\'lARK 1'. STRldN. CHAIIUvlAN
Tentatively scheduled for the April 28, 200'! Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
V-\-::'(lOg-.\R.I.il.i77
r'a;)8,3
~:2::'1 :\,CI lC
~'3. 2:)09
~ ~:6
__t:.......
~d.;eT County
- ----- -
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
DATE:
APRIL 2, 2009
RE:
V A-2008-AR-13977, McDONALD'S GULF GATE PLAZA
This item was originally scheduled for the Collier County Planning Commission's (CCPC) March
19, 2009 public hearing. However, after the publication of the staff report and three days bcfore
the hearing, the applicants' concurrently submitted site development plan (SDP) for the project
was rejected by Architectural Review staff due to the location of the restaurant's drive-through
lane in front of the building (i.e. along its US 41 frontage), which is prohibited by Land
Development Code (LDC) Subsection 5.05.08.E.5., Drive-Through Facili/ies Standards, unless
vegetation required by a Type B buffer is installed "within the required buffer \vidth required for
the project:'
Because the applicants were requesting a Variance of five feet from the required I5-foot Type D
buffer along US 41, it was staffs opinion that they were automatically precluded from pursuing
this design alternative. Nevertheless, in an attempt to have the cepe resolve the dilemma by
granting a Variance from this requirement at the hearing, the applicants raised the issue on the
floor before the planning conunissioners. However, because the CCPC could not legally render a
decision on a Variance request that was not included as part of the application before them, the
applicants instead requested a two-week continuance in order to have time to evaluate alternative
site designs.
The applicants' consultants met with staff to create a mutually acceptable site design. With their
new plan, the applicants are still requesting the sanle four Variances as proposed at the March 19
hearing. However, instead of providing only ten feet of buffer width along the site's US 41
II'ontage, the applicants now propose to provide a total of 15 feet of buffer width in two separate
locations: 10 feet of width that would be located immediately adjacent to US 41, a!ld an
additional five feet of width in a landscape island running the length of the entire drive-through
ai.sIe on the front side of the building, to further screen queuing vehicles from view of US 41 (see
Exhibit A to the resolution). It is staffs opinion that this solution would allow the applicants to
successfully achieve the intent of the Type B buffer requirement of LDC Subsection 5.05.08E5.
(In addition to the Type B buffer p!antings \vithin the requisite buffer \\~dth required for the
project, Subsection 5.05.08.E.5 also requires a "permanent, covered porte-cochere or similar
, ::1 l:;::::'ll I-JO. 17,-::-;
p.~rii :"::8 ::009
:3 d :;6
structure" to be installed along the len!,>1h of the drive-through, with the roof covering the service
windows. At the time of SDP, this secondary criterion will also be satisfied by the applicant's
provision of a standing seam metal awning in this location.)
In order to accommodate the new five-foot wide buffer, the applicants amended their previously
approved parking deviation (APR-2008-AR-13978), which permitted a reduction of only one
space from the 33 required parking spaces, to allow for a further nominal reduction (which is yet
to be deternlined). By doing so, they could eliminate the spaces proposed for handicap parking on
the southern side of the building (and relocate them elsewhere), thereby creating sufficient space
to shift the building's footprint southward. As a result of this alteration, additional area along the
northern side of the building could then be opened up for the new five-foot wide buffer area
between the proposed drive-through lane and the ten-foot US 41 buffer. Staff is amenable to this
further reduction in parking due to the abundance of existing parking spaces ",-ithin Gulf Gate
Plaza, and the shared parking agreement the applicant has with the plaza's o"'ner.
As the outcome of this new design would result in full compliance with LDC Subsection
5.05.08.ES, the applicants are requesting that the CCPC consider the same four (4) Variances
from the LDC Subsection 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, to:
1. Reduce the minimum 15-foot Type "D" buffer width to 10-feet on the property's northern
boundary;
2. Reduce the minimum 7.5-foot Type "A" buffer width on the eastern side to 5-fee!;
3. Reduce the minimum] O-foot Type "D" buffer width on the southern side to 5-feet; and
4. Modif'y the minimum 7.5-foot ",-ide Type "A" bufTer requirement on the western side of
the property by providing five, ] 0- foot wide landscape islands.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney's office has reviewed and approved this staff report, as shown in the email
attached to this staff report.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staffs previous recommendation
remains the same, as noted in the original stafT report dated March 19, 2009. Therefore, staff
recommcnd5 that the CCPC forward V A-2008-AR-13977 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a
recommendation of approval, subject to stipulations contained in the Exhibit B, "Conditions of
Approval," dated March 3, 2009, which are attached to the resolution.
2
VA-2()(J8-AR-13Y77. MCDONAf.D'S ATGULFGATE PLAZA
i;f:~n ;,JD."i7C
,6,::-;;-ii 28. 2009
, ~20 ::A ?(3
PREPARED BY:
Q1;,;"~~~ -?J}'f/OJ-
JOHN~ID MOSS, ATCP, PRlNCTP AL PLANNER-- DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
3-2..4-Of
RA YM D BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND Li\ND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
,J). ~\ V1'V\ .15U/V\.L:? ?-. ~?:!-j /0 ~
SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR fDATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the April 28, 2009 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
VA-2008-AR.13977, A.fCDO/'./ALD'S AT GULFGATE FLAZA
Ii,: :'(; ~ jo, 17=
'-;i ~'8 20:;9
:J ;,C,
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT, OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NEI
(i)
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34 t 04
(239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6968
G"'- .....,..-.....' ..' --~
I VARIANCE PETITION APPLICATION 0 .
, (VA"A~C' FRO. SETBACK'" "QUI"D '0' A PAOTlCU'AO 'ONINO DIST";:]
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
To be C011lplr.ted hy SIf(I]'
Ahove 10 he compleled hy S'{~[r
c
']1
APPLICANT I AGENT INF()RM,\TION
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) MCDONALD'S USA, LlC- TIM CHESS
ADDRESS 10150 HIGHLAND MANOR DRIVE, SUITE 470, TAMPA, Fl
TELEPHONE # 772.486.4190 CELL #
E-MAIL ADDRES5:TIM.CHES5@US.MCD.COM
33610
FAX # 772.679.0130
NAME OF AGENT CPH ENGINEERS, INC.
ADDRESS 2216 ALTAMONT AVENUE, FORT MYERS, FL 33901
TELEPHONE # 239.332.5499 CELL #
E-MAIL ADDRESS:ALOPEZ(!i]CPHENGINEERS.COM
FAX # 239.332.2955
L_
.I
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Logal Description of Subject Property:
Section/Township/Range 11 /50S/25E Property I.D.#: portion of 61834840006
Subdivision: Naples Grove & Truck [OlS little Farm No.2 Unit
Metes & Bounds Description:
Acreage: 0.846
Lot: portion of 37 Block:
Address of Subjecl Property (If different from Petitioner's address}:
r
,I
II
L.
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. -""r
GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE I
REGULATIONS.
~.___-,c.._-~~~._~.=.",..,.---.-
Collil~J CClll1\iy ^ppllt'<Ilion 2008
Hem r~D, 17C
28. 2D09
'V) ..t r:,:,
.:....;. _,IJ;)
ASSOCIA nONS
.. m.' .,.___
II
Complete the Following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide
additionaf sheets jf necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at
b1!RJ f www.coiiier.llov.JJ~tll!1.<;i~~.q sp~iR9g~.=ZZ4
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: NONE
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
ST A TE
ZIP
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAiliNG ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAiliNG ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
ST A TE
ZIP
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
L
._________..J
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Zoning
L(lnd Use
N R.O.W
U.S.41
S (.4, GTMUD.MXD
E (.4, GTMUD-MXD
W C-4, GTMUD-MXD
Mixed use de v., Gulf Gate Plm.a Shopping Center
Vaccmf lot
Mixed use dev., GlJlf Gate Plm:o Shopping Center
Minimum Yard Reauirements for Subiecl Properlv:
Front:
Corner Lot:
Yes 0
Yes 0
No [8J
No I8J
Side:
Waterfront Lot:
Rear:
BE ADVISED THAT SECTION 10.03.05.B.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES AN APPLICANT TO
REMOVE THEIR PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IS) AFTER FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN 8Y THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FiNAL ACTION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE REMOVE ALL PUBLIC
HEARiNG ADVERTISING SIGN(5) IMMEDIATELY.
Conter COUIHy Applicatioll 2003
2
<Ci !~':-;n, 1')0, i 7 C
!~Tii -)3 '/>'!]
?';:;_'8 '.j] Zf'2.6
1- -
-I
NATURE OF PETITION
Provide a detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposedi the
amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e. reduce front setback from 251 to 18lj when property
owner purchased property; when existing principal structure was built (include building permit number (s) if
possible); why encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to bej elc.
For projects authorized under lDC Section 9.04.02, provide detailed description of site aUerations, including any
dredging and filling.
nease note thaI stan- ana me Collier County Piol1ning Commission. sholl be guided ill their recommendation to the
Board of zoning Appeals, CJnd that the Boord of zoning appeals sholl be guided in its determination to approve or
deny a variance petilfon by the below listed criteria (1 oS). (Please oddress these cdleria using additional pages if
necessary,)
1. Are there special conditions CJnd circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics
of the land, structure, or building involved.
This parcel (a lease within the Gulf Gote Plaza Development), while recently having been expanded from 0.84
acres to 0.86 acres is still constrained by it's limited size and shape. The lot size has been maximized through
neg011alion5 with the Plaza owners and McDonald's is proposing to utilize one of the smallest buildings available to
redevelop this property. As suchj the proposed development meets most of the requirements outlined within the
Collier County Development Code. However, the proposed development does nol meet the required parking spaces
(33 required, 32 proposed) and/or the minimum Icmds<:ape buffer depth.
2. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the oction of the appliccmt such os pre.
existing c0nditions re!otlve to the prorerty whkh is the subject of the variance request.
The existing McDonald's restaurant is 011 0 porcei very iimited in si'Ze and does not meet the County's new
dtilveloprnent stondords in numerous area:>. McDonald's, dc~lring to redevelop this re~taurcr1t, hm negotiated to
increase the lease iot/pW'cel to 0.846 acres to ollow the proposed development to accomodole most of the rninimium
Collier County code requirements. Howeverj the minimum parking and/or landscape buffer width con no1 be met. In
add1110nj the porcel con not be enlarged any hlr'ther without negatively impacting the existing plaza. The pClJ"cel is
further constrained by the !leed 10 match up with the exis.ting conditions surTounding the property {the existing Gulf
Gate Plaza Development), The below table summarizes the existing, required, (md proposed conditions of the
redevelopment. In porlicuior, please note that the development proposes to increase the exisfing conditions, the towl
open space, tolol on-site plantingsj and building planter areas to meet the intent of the code.
('nJ1ier COlln\y Applicrllinn 2011k
3
Item fJCJ.17C
.A,p,. ,I :i8, 2:..109
Pa::'j3 24 ;:-A =~3
Provided
landscape Buffers
Existing
Required
North
to
15'
7.5'
7.5'
10'
to'
West
none
10' landscape Islands every .4 spaces
East
none
5'
South
none
5'
Open space
Building Planters
2,879.80 SF. (7%)
662.86 SF.
No spedfic requirements for sites under 5 acres
710 SF.
8,912.38 SF. (24%)
2,229.28 SF.
3. Will 0 literal interpretation of the provisIons of this zoning code work UJlnecessary and undue
hardship on the applicant or cr~ate practical difficulties on the applkan1.
Ye,
4. Will the variance, ff granted) be the minimum variance thar will make possible rhe reasonable use of the land)
building or struclure and which promote standards of health, safety or welfare.
Ye,
5. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner ony spedal privilege that Is denied by
these zoning regulotions to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning distrfct.
No
6. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the infent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be injurious to
the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to 1he public welfare.
Ye,
7, Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that omeliorClte the goals and objectIves of the
regulation such as notural preserves, lakes, golf course, efc.
The proposed redevelopment project will increase the parcels fola! open space, nUl(nber of trees/plants, building
planter areo and provIde substantial tmprovernen1s to fhe building elevation.
8. WlH granting the variance be consistent with thA growth monogement plan.
Yes
9. Officiallnlerprelaljons or Zoni!l9.Yerifl.~9ns: To your knowledge, has there been an official
interpretation or zoning verification rendered on thIs property within the last year? ~ Yes 0 No
If SO, please provide copies.
Colliel Cuunly Applknlioll 2008
4
,:;;:", itr;r.~i ~'JJ, 17C
~;xil 28, 2009
25 :JT =>3
AFFIDA VIT
l~ Shaul Rikman, Manager of Gulf elate Plaza. LLCj...bcing fIrst duly swom, depose and say that well
am/are the owners of the property degcrihcd herein and which is the suhject matter of the proposed hearing;
thot all the :mswers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest informution, all
sketches, data and other supplementary rnatter attached to and made a pan of this application, Me honest
and true to the best OrOll!' knowicdge anu belief, I und~r5talld that the information requested olllhis
application mllst be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or
County printed ,hall be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised untit this application is deemed
complete, and all required information has been submitted.
As the manager for the property owner, I further authorize .G.l'Ji IiNGINEERS. INC. to act as Guif<iale
Plaza, LLC1s representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
Gulf Gate PlaZa~'FjOrida limit~biljty co
By . L~---C{r//;~
J ul Rikman, Manager
State of Florida
County of f3;t.cw1:l-J_
OWNER:
The foregoing instrument was ackl10wledged before me thisijd\ day of Dccember~ 2008, by S_~..?!!l
""m,.. "" i, .",oM", ","=m"" 'dl /i l~l . "' ,",m"",,""
Signature 0 Notary Publie
Notary Stamp
\\\\\\\111111111/11
,,\' ~'I>I PEA",'II,
~"SJ<f.~.....~/,/4.4t. ....~
~ ~ e.~~~\SSION ;all ~~ ~
:;:: . Q'" \2D 1',,0', ~
~ ....:.....G r:;.~'" ,(3a ~'. ~
:E :~-f ~~~:
::::*: III'''~. :*E
%'5\ #D0423670 j?J~
~r'1' fk, ~.ofk~
~'1"..(','.'l'o' ,~rn~\\\~~#t!;, G';::
~.'I--'.2'..ct'tl;,;\Jr#...'<<.'V~
:;Iz A,.{ -..H" ,,<t-.~
'1111~?,Ztc, STfl,it\~,,\\'\
11//1111\11\\
V.\.}OOg./\ll.139TJ REV: 1
fvlCDONAl 0<; AT GUlF (;f,.1"I: rlAZA
PfWnCT: 20fJ7Q4001l
n....\T!.': 11,/J.R/08 DUE:: 12/.1/08
i~e!T; \0 ~
~'~~i~ ~=~2 ~~?~~
COLLlliRCOUNTYGOVERNMENT
Community Development nnd Environmental Services Division
Department ,,[Zoning and Land Development Rcvicw
2800 NOlih Horseshoe Drive' Naplcs, Florida 341 04
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
10 "01 If"J 'i;"1 '-.' ,.~p '7:1 r~
L~ ~~J~~ i~::~':'2~~:"~' '~i
July 18, 2008
Mr. Albert Lopez
CPH Engineers, Inc.
22!! Peck Street, Suite 300
Fort Myers, Florida 33901
,J\,1.:l.CIil-OO
Re: Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR-2008-AR-13492, regarding property located at
2886 Tamiami Twi! East, aka Gulf Gate Plaza, Folio number 6] 834840006, in Section II
Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
Dear MI'. Lopez:
In your letter dated May I, 2008 you ask for written confirmation that your actions in
remodeling the McDonald's site will not affect Gulf Gate Plaza, and that the Plaza will
not be subject to any. similarrequircment8 to bring it up to currcnt Code as well, pursuant
to Section 4.02.00 Site Design Standards ofthe Collier County L<lIJd Development Code.
The properl)' has a zoning designation of General Commercial District-Gateway Triangle
Mixed Vse Overlay District-Mixed Use Sub-district (C-4-GTMVD-MXD) and a Final
Plat (FP-2008-AR-i2928) has been preliminarily approved to split the McDonald's parcel
from the Gulf Gate Plaza ~ite.
You state that the McDonald's will be remodeled and brought up to current Code to the
greatest extent possible aftcr the replat reeeivcs final approval from the Board of County
Commissioners. Preliminary discussion with county staff showed that thc ncwly created
McDonald's site will go through the Site Development Plan (SDP) process in order to be
redeveloped. The SDP process or the Platting process will not require the Gulf Gate Plaza
site to come into compliance with Clment County codes.
Pleasc be adviscd that the information presented in this verification lctter is based on the
Collier County Land Development Code andfor Growtll Management Plan in effect as of
this date. It is possible that subsequent amendment(s) to eithcr of these documents could
aileet the validity oflhis verification letter, It is also possible that development of the
subject property (McDonald's Restimrant) could he affected by other issues not addressed
in this letter, such as, but no) /ip1ited to, COnClllTency related to the provision of adequate
public facilities, environmental impact, and other requirements of the Collier County
Land Development Code or related ordinances.
c
"
r~
,.
<:::-
"
w
>>
L .1'
~...........-----.
-
--
Phone (239) 403-2400
Fax (23,?) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2913
wwwcollicrgov.nct
Should you require further infonnation please do not hesitate to call me at (239) 252-
2942.
Researched and prepared by:
~~~~;~~mer
Department of Zoning & Land
Development Review
Cc: ZLTR-2008-AR-13268 (correspondence filc)
{'"
~':::; 2~)Cj~,
- - J~ 27 :,f :'.('3
VA.200g.AR-13977 HOt: 1
MCDONALDS AT GUl.f GAT( I'LAZA
PIWJECT: 20070010011
DATE: 11/18/08 DUE: 12/4/08
2211 Peck Streef, Suite 300
Fort Myers, Florida 33901
Phone: 239.332.5499
Fax: 239.332.2955
www.cphengineers.com
November 10, 2008
Ms. Susan Istenes
Director of Zoning
Collier County Government
Dept of Zoning & land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: McDonald's Gulf Gate Plaza Variance Petition
Dear Ms. Istenes:
On behalf of McDonald's USA, llC, CPH Engineers, Inc. hereby submits this variance
application for your consideration on the above referenced project.
This parcel (a lease within the Gulf Gate Plaza Developrnent), while recently having
been expanded from 0.84 acres to 0.86 acres is still constrained by it's limited size and
shape. The lot size has been maximized through negotiations with the Plaza owners
and McDonald's is proposing to utilize one of the smallest buildings available to
redevelop this property. As such, the proposed development meets most of the
requirements outlined within the Collier County Development Code. However, the
proposed development does not meet the required parking spaces (33 required, 32
proposed) and/or the minimum landscape buffer depth.
We look forward to your review of the project and your input, and please do not hesitate
to contact us if you req uire any additional information.
Respectfully Submitted,
le~}t~!hi~.a,)
(]e~rey ~tiield, P.E., CPESC (/~
Senior Vice President/Branch Manager
Etlgitleers' Surveyors' Architects (AJI.260D0926) . l'larmers' Latldscal1r:Arc1litects' E'lvirom1tlmbllScicllti.<~tS' ConstrllctiollMatta~ct1!ellt. Desi.vr/Ruild
i:,:;!;";r'Je:
! ',,..,
'''''-'''''' , ..-----...~---'--
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FlORIDA 34104
(239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643.6968
::3.' J"
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING 8, LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WW)~'_COLLlERGQ\,'.NET
;:J', _,""
VARIANCE PETITION
VA-200B.MQ3977 l\CV: 1
McnONALDS AT GULF GATE PLAZA
PROJECT: 2007040011
DArE: 11/18/08
DUE; 12/4/08
r==__-----_
o Oimensjonol
,...~,."",-"._~--'-----------'~~
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES *
& SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
Date: -f}~J/J 1\ Time: -;-Ji:_~f) -;_ Assigned Planner: --:fJJ flA/c1 S S
Project Nan,e: _ rL. ~{c.'c[JtYiJLJ!.ji f lftz...;<L.1\ ~__ __ ___n
Project Addr/Location:_ ;)- g gltI~-1h.1 (Vn~._ 'fJ70( ( -7?<< sL---
Appiicant Name:
Phone:
Cd~1d 't::r-jd(cQi2-{ I___
Current Zoning:-----L:_i.f~__ ~"'-d.t71./vf_iLI:2 .- AA.y'j,
,J: S nc/[l''- &'-"'0 J;ddJ'i./l1~lbLt",ih_J/1-1c.-
Owner Address: _______,.,___ _ Phone:
Firm:
Owner Name:
Meeting Attendees: (attach Sign In Sheel)
NOTES:
f'1N'>RS"'3'''-'\\~C- (o11"\l')M~"jE::\~~ \::'()~_ 8\ ')\lj::::'\N.G I '\~ C()\'-\.~I\:SI-\Nr::;
. 'r,,' ,wlv' - ,.;;) I'+S CO La I"c:.
-4Jqc.PI f'il/vl''-4 /" _v V,L--n~vrH'I~",~ '-f{;
N-:!,0/i;V,7/1Y\h--4J " /' 'i/.~, 0 L'D c/ ~J.i U ~~k-' '0:
1,~ I \ l:0itQ.182cif); frI,"V1{/..Q,}
Jt6 _~'I1f21J!J (,;",) IHP"'l \IIJ?WV1 +- 10.1..111\1'11, ;Jktil.~__0[jZ<'LVed-.:.~f_. . .
fJA...,fu V'i i1"1 nt\V~v,',J (:JY'.uv'-("'':~.!.d V'/ ~f-l,- l.{;t'rl""flcL !-{'rA.f-j~.
o jf tclcph~ pre-opplica1ion meet1ng is held, direct fhe petitioner to coordinate with Unda
concerning the requirement for the petitioner to send the notice letter to the surrounding
proper'ty owners or 10 give them that inforrnotion tlw1 Linda typically provides them
[-
l;,srn f,JO 'i 7e
~':;;~""'-~fO?~
, CO'j)Q
VARIANCE PETITION
(VA) APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH Af'PLlCATlON PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER
LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
REQUIREMENTS
# OF
COPIES
REQUIRED
NOT
REQUIRED
Completed Application {download from website for current /ormlo.
__Pre-A~pIJcotjon meeting notes ..____._~..
Completed Addressing Checklist, Signed by Addressing Departmellt
Conceptuoi Site Plan ~'--X::J_6~.'!n_~._one 8 '/2 " x 11" copy
Survey of property showing the encroachment (measured in feet)
Owner/Ag;nt Affidavit signed & noi~~i;'ed.- '.
Deeds/legal's -.---
Location m.::.p.~ ___~__________
Aerial photographs (taken within the previous I 2 months min. sea led
1 "=200J,showing FlUCCS C09!,s,_Legend, ClIlcJ.J:>!:.ceJ-,,-ct boundary
Electronic copy of ai~d_oc"-n:ents and plans (CD ROM or Diskelle)
Historical Surveyor waiver request 1
Environmental lmpact-Stalement (ETS) and digita~/electrolljc copy ~ - ----- - ~---- - .-r-
EIS or exemption justificatIon _ ,d I
Witbin_30 days ;;fter receipt of the-Ilrsl r<~vlc.w_~~;~;~letter~-- 1 ~
_provide P~erty Owner Advi29!:X_ l~tt~! and Ce(flfkation _ ~_ __ __
Proiec Nor rc.llj~e _ __ _____ _ __ 15 _ __ x- __ ~
Send copy of review package to Robin Singers Planning Director, City of Naples
295 Riverside Circle, Naples, Fl 34102
15
~_._-'-'
15
1
-.-.-- -.-
15
1
1
2
_._--'-'- -
1
5
---- X
~
.~ Pre-application Fee $500.00 (Applicotions .uhmitted 9 months or more oller the date of the last
pre-opp meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre-application meeting will
be required.)
Review Fee~;
o $2000.00 Residential
&'$5000.00 Non-Residential
~After-ThC~Foct Zoning/Land Use Petitions 2x the normal petition fee
760.00 Estimated legal Advertising Fee. eepc Meeting
, $363.00 Estimated legal Advertising fce - BeC Meeting
. (ovcr- or under-payment will be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily Ncw~).
o $2500,00 EIS Review
OTHER REQUIREMENTS,
0_____
D_
O
Agent/Owner Signature
Date
2
c\
,~
~
'\.')
~ ,,':1 ?:;
~ ,,\ l-
. '-I w
, "- w
,. .::E
\)~ ~
o
UJ
I-
<t
o
~ TrITT]
0::
c
C
<(
....
<(
~
I
LIJ
c-n~l
l. ":;-".,", "
'::)-'") ,
o~
r-J C)
j-..'Q;~; ,
N '
._ CD
C '= ~
=I:l :0
.1<( !J_
ell
;:::I
."",
.....
Cl.l
0)
~
=
o
....
1'<1='
.~
~u
:, .....
. F<rQ(
~
~
,~
I
,(!)
t~
~
I
~
I
I
I
I
L,,~=___
~
~
~
==
rfl
~ ~
zr ~
~ ,5
~
rfJ, ~
1,' ,.)
~ '---~
I .~>
1 ~o /
I ~~)
J ~
,.
,e.'
~
<-,\
/ .~d
",---)
'~--)
"::-~
,~
'-...---~ UJ
I' ::E
I \'),I~
\~~ u
~_) W
,~) ..
! ,~-- 0
i c- ""
, ,., 0,
._~'--=-:~y~
"-rT--i
,
m '-r-'
I
--
N
o
, -
"'
ro
- , ';3 I:ern ~~(;. 'j ~;'C
!;.pril 28. 2DC'd
F'i;:;;jC:: :::'Jf ~;o
RESOLUTION 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COilliTY RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER V A-
2008-AR-I3977, FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE SUBSECTION 4.06.02 LOCATED IN SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTI!, RANGE 25 EAST IN COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and sucb
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LOC)
(Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the rolling of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted Board of the
area hereby affected, has held a public bearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided,
and has considered the advisability of a variance from the landscape requirements of Land
Development Code Subsection 4.06.02 by reducing the millimum 15-foot Type "0" buffer width to
10 feet on the property's northern boundary; by reducing the minimum 75-foot Type "A" buffer
width on the eastern side to 5 feet; by reducing the minimum 10-foot Type "0" buffer width on the
southern side to 5 feet; and by modifying the minimum 75-foot wide Type "A" buffer requirement
on the western side of lhe property by proving five separate 10-foot wide landscape islands in the
General Commercial (C-4) and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD) zolling
districts for the property located at 2886 Tamiami Trail East in Section II, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision
and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and
in accordance with Section 4.06.02 of said Land Development Code of Collier COWlty; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in
public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented.
Page 1 of2
i,dij(l
~'8, .' ClUj
,-, :,f ;:6
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY The Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier
County, Florida, that:
The Petition VA-2oo8-AR-13977 filed by A]bert Lopez ofCPH Engineers, Inc. representing
McDonalds USA, LLC, ,,,ith respect to the subject property, be and the same hereby is approved for a
variance from the landscape requirements of Land Development Code Subsection 4.06.02 by
reducing the minimum IS-foot Type "D" buffer width to ] 0 feet on the property's northern boundary;
by reducing the minimum 75-foot Type "A" buffer width on the eastern side to 5 feet; by reducing
the minimum ]O-foot Type "D" buffer width on the southern side to 5 feet; and by modifying the
minimum 75-foot wide Type "A" buffer requirement on the western side of the property by proving
five separate lO-foot wide landscape islands all of which is located in the General Commercia] (C-4)
and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD) wning districts.
BE ]T FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V A-2oo8-
AR-13977 be recorded in the minutes oftms Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote, this
day
of
,1009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
, Deputy Clerk
By:..
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams ~1t,.)
Assistant County Attorney '{t<(..,
Exhibits Attached:
A Master Plan
B: Conditions
Page 2 of2
J
i J
h
~.. ')
~~ J
II
I~
,
~l!!!
:~u
oJ 1'01
JlIt3" !!~!
I 1',..
1 i'
. I
t"'l
><
-
-
-.
-
:::.
...
'\'[
.... 0
;..
!~em ~~O. 'liC
^'r--'::: :=:. :"-:"09
/ Peon "' c "'0
. :J'.';~" ,)-t ,) J0
, ~ .
,
"
/ ,/
~.
"
/,
i 1111 0 · I"" '"
~~~~~ "~J ..l,uJI U!Uh!
Illlli IIP!Illlliil,il'llllllllllll
I 'I ll!! !I'I!;!1i
I Iii ,Illlil.
o ,Ill!' S
tll,
m~ ~!!I! 'I' i ~,! Ililll ;1!1 I illllllllll :l II ill ~
~ill H:~t 'I ! ~! ~ - ~ I ~~! ~
IE'" ~ ". ~ ill: .
._., I ~ I --a ",en <>..,~ Uo. -
~, ~.. . I litH' PI' ""!' I! . I '
"I" . "" ,h; !! I I!!l
JL~!! . ~ h.; ii.~ - I "
~i H~I' ~ '!"'"~I c,... Uli ln~ ! ~ r i-
!, ".,; !l! ...., I" ,,'
. -~ 5 Jl l -.~
;'1' ---, i'! I j'
:, IU ~ ~
~~~ Hi t g ,~
'! III I! ,I;
" II II ! ;
$IT!. DIMENSION PLAN.
,~
~..- ..""
~..,.~ "-
-- -
- ,ow'"
_ o.~'" ',"1101I
_... "'0101> ,,,,_
.......,-.-
.
""....::-,;::.."
Hili I III
i;;~11'ri ItII~ l!!t
na II III ill!
McDonald's.
ZIl&ll TAMIAMl mAlL EAaT
COI..UEll:Coumy,I'l,.OItIll,I,
""'--
:::8,')
"-'~:3
~Q~
-= =:: 'D
c.;;:: C"J
8 :::Lev
=<(0-
'"
"
Q)
CJl
<(
,
, j i
-+-71 ~
" '
"
~~
>. Z
~:'i::;
~~ffi
S~~
'{!:;;o
cwO",
~~~
~ :::~~
~ ~~~
E~"o<J)<Il'"
"
,0
t (!' *
.J .J) II
.~ :i ~Jl
"
.,
"
()
,
G
"
',- (\
,~~ :1' 8
f~ jL ;
'--, L n
r- 1 !
li) ~ ._
"
If) L ~
, ,
;. ,,, Y If i
f~; ~l! '~ ':; I
l l J1 (;,
l;) 1\) ~2 '
': 1
C! "
"
I'
I'>' -
,,1 ',:1
h' u.;
':' ;;-
o
'"
"
3
~';::~;:C
~ ;f; ~ ~~
Z (~, r, [[1
;,~ ;-. !: v.:
~,
,,~
.7
:Jj
,j
,,'
,
~~ I ~.~
"t, 1 :" Iv
(.." L ,) u \~
01 G (} 0
" ,~i
,", ,
.n
"
u
~
"
"
u
5'
8: ~~ ~
~i ~ ~i;;
'"
i :D i (I (J :~ I
\'. r ~ i c: ~j (', l"
1"'1/6", ',' 0
,,' (Y('f}O
,
~
(c',
L_~
ft.
" ','.;:
.;.;
,
..... ,.""~:
"*~ .
-I.~
.,. Q:-"'~'
~~.~
rff.$f
.;::: 'i' ",0
,if;'" "(,~ ~ ~
., i;J';.r...... ." "
":~?'A.. .'0 ,
'~',
J;T
..;
~---.--T I
"'
'!}
".
'0
m
-0
.;::
~O
II -fu..
>.
.-
C
o
,0
(j)
Q)
0.
,m
Z
(j)
-0
ml
c ~I
OR:
0;
() ~,
:>- '
--
,
~
....
:E
.-
-
--
~
'-'I
J
:t~rn IJD. 7e
28, 2 U3
,- "83:3 U_,,_,
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
V A-2008-AR-13977
April 4, 2009
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition V A-2008-AR-13977 to the Board of
Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following
conditions:
I. The Variances approved are strictly limited to the landscape buffer width
requirements as depicted on the applicant's conceptual site plan (Exhibit A), entitled,
"Site Dimension Plan, prepared by CPH Engineers, Inc., dated December 2008, as
revised through February II, 2009; and as further depicted in the landscape plan,
entitled "McDonald's, Naples, Collier County, Florida" dated April I, 2009 (Exhibit
A-I), as further restricted below.
2. The five-foot buffer width Variance granted is limited to the northern, US-41
property boundary, as depicted in the conceptual site plan included as Exhibit A, to
allow a reduction of the IS-foot wide buffer requirement;
3. Thc 2.5-foot buffcr width Variance granted is limited to the eastern property
boundary, as depicted in the conceptual site plan included as Exhibit A, to allow a
reduction of the 7,5-foot wide buffer requirement;
4. The 5-foot buffer width Variance granted is limited to the southern property
boundary, as depicted in the conceptual site plan included as Exhibit A, to allow a
reduction of the la-foot wide buffer requirement;
5. The 7.5-foot buffer width Variance granted is limited to the western property
boundary, as depicted in the conceptual site plan included as Exhibit A, to allow five,
I a-foot minimum width landscape buffers.
6. All the plant materials required by the LDC for screening and buffering shall be
accommodated to the extent feasible in the modified and/or reduced width buffers'
respective areas, in locations to be approved by the County Landscape Architect
7. Irrespective of that shown on the conceptual site plan included as Exhibit A, the
proposed use shall be required to comply with the Architectural and Site Design
Standards of LDC Section 5.05.08 and all other applicable regulations at thc time of
site development plan (SDP) review and approvaL
EXHIBIT B