Agenda 09/23/2008 Item #17DItem # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 1 of 101
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RZ- 2007 -AR- 12044: Immokalee LLC, represented by Shaun Mularkey, AICP, of Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District
to the Residential Multi- family -16 (RMF -16) Zoning District to permit a multi- family
development on 9.33± acres with a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre for property
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR -846) and School
Road, in Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, in the unincorporated Immokalee
area of Collier County, Florida.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an application for a rezone as
noted above and ensure that the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and
regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Petitioner is requesting a rezoning to the RMF -16 zoning district to allow development of a
15 unit per acre, 140 dwelling multi - family project on a 9.33 acre site. The subject property is
presently vacant and undeveloped, and has not been previously disturbed. Only the 6.42 acre
uplands portion of the site would be developed, and the remaining 2.91 acres of wetland area
(marsh, swamp, and drainage canals) would be preserved. The development standards for the
RMF -16 Zoning District are as follows:
• Maximum Zoned Building Heights: 50 feet
• Maximum Front Yard Setback: 1/2 SBH with a minimum of 30 feet.
In addition, a minimum of 140 parking spaces, or one space per unit plus visitor parking, would
be required for the proposed multi - family dwelling units.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The rezone by and of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee
that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the
rezone is approved, a portion of the land could be developed.
The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the
impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as
needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to
meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development
order approved by Collier County is required to pay 50 percent of the estimated Transportation
Impact Fees associated with the project. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building
permit include building permit review fees and the remainder of the transportation impact fees
and other applicable impact fees.
Immokalee LLC Page 1 of 6
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 2 of 101
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: The subject 9.33 acre property, as identified on the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) of the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP), is within the land use
designation known as Neighborhood Center (NC) Subdistrict (denoted as NC on the IAMP
FLUM). The purpose of this land use classification is to provide for centers of activity that serve
the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. The centers should contain a blended mix of
neighborhood oriented uses such as day care centers, parks, schools and governmental activities.
Pursuant to the NC designation, Section 4. e., "residential development within the designated
Neighborhood Centers shall permit a maximum density of twelve (12) units per gross acre.
Residential dwelling units shall be limited to multi - family structures and less intensive units such
as single - family and duplexes provided they are compatible with the district."
The petitioner is proposing an exclusively multi - family -based residential development which
would be consistent with residential uses intended for the NC. From the density perspective, the
petitioner is requesting 15 units per acre based upon Residential In -fill Bonus eligibility.
Section 2, Density Bonuses, d. Residential In -fill, of the IAMP, lists the following additional
criteria, "To encourage residential in -fill, three (3) residential dwelling units per gross acre may
-- be added if the following criteria are met..."
Based upon the above analysis, the project is eligible for a maximum density of 15 dwelling units
per acre (du/a).
GMP Conclusion: Staff deems the subject RMF -16 rezone request consistent with the [AMP
based on the following
• The site qualifies as a residential in -fill project which is eligible for three
additional dwelling units per acre and the LAMP allows 12 units per acre for a
maximum density of 15 units per acre.
• A density cap of 15 dwelling units per acre shall be placed on the RMF -16
rezone request and shall be included in the rezone ordinance as RMF - 16(15).
Transportation Element: The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the 2013
build -out traffic conditions according to conclusions drawn in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS).
All roadways were shown to operate acceptably after the addition of the proposed re -zone and
use of the Immokalee Road Multi - family site. Intersection analysis and turn lane analysis will be
performed as a part of the Site Development Plan (SDP) process. Transportation Planning staff
recommends that this petition be found consistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation
Element of the GMP.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT:
This request contains no provisions to address the Affordable- Workforce housing demands that it
may create.
Immokalee LLC Page 2 of 6
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 3 of 101
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Environmental Review staff has reviewed this petition, and recommends approval. However on
January 17, 2008, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) voted to continue this
petition directing that it be presented to the Environmental Advisory Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EACI RECOMMENDATION:
On May 7, 2008, this petition was presented to the EAC. The EAC, by a unanimous vote of 8 to
0 found that the subject property is not within the Camp Keais /Lake Trafford Flowway, and
further, the EAC determined that the preserve selection as shown on the proposed concept plan is
consistent with the ranking and location requirements in the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
The 15 percent preservation requirement is based on the entire 9.33± -acre site, thus 1.4 acres of
preserve area is shown on the site plan.
The EAC recommended the following items shall be required as part of the Site Development
Plan (SDP) approval process:
1. A Preserve Management Plan shall be provided including a replanting plan for the
area of invasive exotic vegetation in the preserve area;
2. A listed species update shall be required prior to the approval of the SDP
including panther and bear telemetry points;
3. Listed species management plans shall be required, including for the Florida black
bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel; and
4. Mitigation for Florida panther impacts shall be approved by USFWS - US Fish
and Wildlife Service.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPCI RECOMMENDATION:
As noted above, on January 17, 2008, the CCPC voted 8 to 0 to continue this petition directing
that it be presented to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) for review to determine if the
project would negatively impact the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Flowway depicted on the Future
Land Use Map or Immokalee Area Master Plan,
The CCPC heard petition RZ- 2007 -AR -12044 again on August 7, 2008, and by a unanimous
vote recommended to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a
recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions:
The site plan prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated August 21, 2008,
is conceptual in nature. The final design must be in compliance with all applicable
federal, state, and county laws and regulations.
2. Development of this site is limited to a density maximum of fifteen units per acre.
As part of the first Site Development Plan/plat submittal, the developer shall provide:
Immokalee LLC Page 3 of 5
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 4 of 101
a) A Preserve Management Plan that includes a replanting plan for the area of
invasive exotic vegetation in the preserve area; and
b) A Listed Species update that includes panther and bear telemetry points; and
C) Listed Species Management Plans that includes the Florida black bear and Big
Cypress fox squirrel; and
d) Written evidence of the mitigation for Florida panther impacts approval from the
US Fish and Wildlife Service.
4. The developer shall locate the preserve generally along the southern boundary of the
property to protect the cypress swamp, subject to staff approval as part of the Site
Development Plan/plat approval process.
5. The developer shall relocate protected plant species to the preserve area prior to any other
construction.
6. Building heights shall be limited to a zoned height of 50 feet not to exceed 3 habitable
stories.
7. The development shall be limited to one full access driveway that shall be located at least
440 feet west of the School Road/CR 846 intersection.
8. The developer shall provide an emergency exit to School Road as a second access
(emergency exit use only). This exit is to be located at the end of the parking area at the
project's northeastern corner.
9. The developer shall reserve a maximum of 20 feet of land for potential right -of -way along
the project's CR 846 perimeter property boundary. Said land shall be labeled as
reservation for potential future right -of -way and no structures except that stormwater
improvements limited to swales, mitered end sections, and culverts, shall be constructed
in the reservation. Upon written request of Collier County Transportation Division or its
successor, the owner shall convey said land or a portion thereof as determined appropriate
by Collier County, to Collier County in fee simple title with payment by Collier County.
10. Collier County will not be required to construct a noise wall for the existing CR 846 or
any future expansion of CR 846.
11. The developer shall provide a 25 -foot wide Type D landscape buffer along the project's
CR 846 property boundary.
12. The developer shall provide sidewalks (built to county standards) along the property's
entire frontage on the south side of School Road.
Because the CCPC approval recommendation was unanimous and no letters of objection have
been received, this petition has been placed on the Summary Agenda.
1=okalee LLC Page 4 of 6
RZ- 2007 -AR- 1.2044
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 5 of 101
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Petitioner is requesting a rezone fi-om the Estates Zoning District to the Residential Multi - Family
-16 (RMF -16) Zoning District. The attached staff report and recommendations of the Planning
Commission required are advisory only and are not binding on you. Decisions regarding this
type of rezone are quasi - judicial, and all testimony given must be under oath. The petitioner has
the burden to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below, and
you may question Petitioner, or staff, to satisfy yourself that the necessary criteria have been
satisfied. Should you consider denying the rezone, to assure that your decision is not later found
to be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable, the denial must be based upon competent,
substantial evidence that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below.
Approval of this request to rezone requires four affirmative votes of the Board.
Criteria for Straight Rezones
1. 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?
2. Will the proposed rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
3. Would the proposed rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
4. Are the existing district boundaries illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change?
5. Do changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary?
6. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood?
7. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because
of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safet)'?
8. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
9. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
10. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
11. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
Immokalee LLC Page 5 of 6
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 6 of 101
12. Will the proposed change constitute a grant o1 special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare?
13. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning?
14. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
15. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for
the proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
16. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site
alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the
range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
17. What is 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 [Code ch.106, art.I1], as amended?
18. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to this rezone request that the
Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare?
The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient
for Board action. -STW
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve Petition RZ -2007-
AR -12044 subject to the CCPC conditions listed previously and included in the attached
Ordinance of adoption.
PREPARED BY:
Kay Deselem, Principal Planner, A1CP
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
Immokalee LLC Page 6 of 6
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 7 of 101
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members: RZ- 2007 -AR- 12044: Immokalee LLC, represented by Shaun Mularkey, AICP,
of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning
District to the Residential Multi- family -16 (RMF -16) Zoning District to permit a multi - family
development on 9.33& #177; acres with a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre for property
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR -846) and School Road,
in Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, in the unincorporated Immokalee area of Collier
County, Florida.
Prepared By:
Department Date
Zoning and Land Development Review 9/5/2008 11:20:32 AM
Approved By:
Department Approval Date
Zoning and Land
Development Approved 9/9/2008 3:09 PM
Review
Approved By:
Department Approval Date
Transportation
Plann Approved 9/9/2008 4:19 PM
i ng
Approved By:
Department Approval Date
Transportation Approved 9/11/20082:19 PM
Approved By:
Department Approval
County Attorney Approved
Approved By:
Department Approval
CDES Approved
Date
9/11/2008 3:13 PM
Date
9/11/2008 4:00 PM
Approved By:
Department Approval Date
Office of
Management Approved 9/12/200812:21 PM
and Budget
Approved By:
Department Approval
County A roved
Manager's Office pp
ATTACHMENT
Name:
Description:
d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY w
(legal considerations 9 -2 -08 doc
Executive Summary for rezone
❑ Application far P li
Hearing for 1- 17 -08pdf
Application for Public Hearing
❑ ordinance for BCC 8; 22-
Q8
Ordinance for Approval
❑ RZ- 2007- AR- 12044-
Immokalee.LLC.Ddf
Staff Report for 8/7/08 CCPC
6 Staff report for 1 -17 -08
CPC. df
Staff Report for 1117/08 CCPC hearaing
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 8 of 101
Date
9/13/2008 11:52 AM
Type:
Executive Summary
Application
Ordinance
Staff Report
Staff Report
CAA ,l 1G
fN
amf�
r,
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
STANDARD REZONE
Petition
Commission District:
Date Petition Received:
Planner Assigned:
ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF
1. General Information:
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 9 of 101
Name of Applicant(s) Barry Goldmeier Tor Zmmotica� LLC
Applicant's Mailing Address 250 Catalonia Avenue Suite 606
City Coral Gables State Florida Zip 33134
Applicant's E -Mail Address: beoldmeier @aol.com
Applicant's Telephone # (305) 461 -2330 Fax # (305) 461 -2346
Name of Agent Shaun Mularkey, AICP Firm_Coastat Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Agent's Mailing Address 3106 South Horseshoe Drive
City Naples State Florida Zip 34104
Agent's Telephone # (239) 643 -2324 Ext. 147 Fax # (239) 6434364
Agent's E -Mail Address: smularkeva,cecifl.com
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104
PHONE (239) 403- 2400/FAX (239) 643 -6968
*Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and
ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations.
Item # 17D
eptember 23, 2'008
Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additio ge 10 of 101
sheets if necessary)
Name of Homeowner Association: N/A
Mailing Address City State _ Zip
Name of Homeowner Association: N/A
Mailing Address City State _ Zip
Name of Homeowner Association: N/A
Mailing Address City State _ Zip
Name of Master Association: N/A
Mailing Address City State _ Zip
Name of Civic Association: N/A
Mailing Address City State _ Zip
2. Disclosure of Interest 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
:LS_'_1J .. : 'IJ
Item # 17D
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockh� ember 23, 2008
and the percentage of stock owned by each 11 of 101
Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock
Barry Goldmeier 5001
_250 Catalonia Avenue Suite 606
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Lee Goldmeier 50%
61 South Paramus Road. Box 1765
Paramus, N.J. 07652
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 Interest
d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMI'T'ED 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:
.. -. 1.I.. .:1 ; 1 &1 j 14202 lei •71.:o :. L41i,. #.@ -- /: ii.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008.
If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, liRa* 12 of 101
individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust.
Name and Address
g. Date subject property, acquired ® leased ❑ March 23.2004 Term of tease
_yrs. /mos.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option:
terminates: , or anticipated closing date _
and date option
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.
3. Detailed ]teal descripdon of the property covered by 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 submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six
months, maximum 1 " to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre - application meeting.
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: 9 Township: 47 S Range: 29 E
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book _Page #: Property I.D. #: 00134000002
Metes & Bounds Description: The NE' /4 of the SE `/4 of the NE' /4 of Section 9
Township 47 South, Ranee 29 East Collier County Florida Less the right of way for
County Road 846.
4. Size of property. ft. X ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres,-9.33—
5.
Southwest comer of the intersection of
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008.
6. Adiacent zoning and land use: Page 13 of 101
Zoning Land use
N (VR)- Village Residential Improved multi - family development (farm worker village)
S (E) -Estates Vacant Land
Agricultural with
E (A- MHO) mobile home overlay Seminole Indian Land — Casino /vacant land
W (E) —Estates Improved — vacant portion of school property
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property?
NO
If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is
inadequate, attach on separate page).
Section: Township: Range:
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #:
Metes & Bounds Description:
7. Rezone Request: This application is requesting a rezone from the (E) — Estates
zoning district (s) to the (RMF —16) residential multi- family zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property:
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential multi - family development
8. Evaluation Criteria: Pursuant to Section 10.03.05.G. 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.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Standard Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.03.05.GJ Page 14 of 101
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies and future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan.
The proposed change from the Estates zoning district to RAE -16 would be
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map of the
growth management plan. The subject property is within Immokalee and guided
by the Immokalee Area Master Plan. The proposed zoning change would not only
meet the current objective of the Master Plan, but it would also meet the presently
proposed changes to the Plan.
The current Immokalee Future Land Use Map plans the subject property and
surrounding area as NC — Neighborhood Center. According to the Master Plan,
this category is eligible for up to twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. The
property is also eligible for an additional three (3) dwelling units per acre as a
residential infill. To qualify as residential infill the project must be ten (10) acres
or less in size, served by public sewer /water, abut at least one developed property,
owned independently of surrounding parcels, and created prior to the provision in
the Growth Management Plan. Based on these criteria, the project is eligible for
up to fifteen (15) units per acre.
The presently proposed changes to the Immokalee Future Land Use Map depict
the area as High Density Residential N 5 units /acre).
A multi- family residential project would provide a quality housing choice in the
area.
2. The existing land use pattern.
Much of the immediate surrounding area is currently undeveloped. There are
scattered developments in the area that include office development to the west, the
Bethune Education Center to the northwest, a farm workers village to the north,
and the Seminole Casino to the northeast.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts.
This proposed project would provide the residential infill component that is
needed in the immediate area as part of the Neighborhood Center district.
According to the Master Plan, centers should contain a mix of neighborhood
oriented uses such as residential, day care, parks, schools, and governmental
activities.
According to the Neighborhood Center district, non - residential uses shall be at
least 20% of the size of the center. This Neighborhood Center is roughly 97 acres
in size. There are currently non - residential uses (school and governmental
offices) totaling approximately 10 acres within the Neighborhood Center. Total
developed land (including this proposed rezoning) within the center is
approximately 26 acres. Therefore, the current percentage of developed land in
the district that is non - residential is about 39 %. Additionally, there will be
GIteQm,, # 17D
roughly 71 remaining acres in which to achieve a wide range of non -resit mber 23, 2008
uses.
°�Q°�aay�15 of 101
Rezoning the subject parcel to allow multi - family uses will not adversely impact
the total desired mix of uses within the district.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property for the proposed change.
N /A.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment (rezone) necessary.
This area surrounding the proposed project is transitioning. Neighborhood
Centers planned in Immokalee are envisioned as mixed -use areas including
residential densities greater than is allowed by the existing Estates zoning.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The proposed multi- family residential project would positively influence the area
and improve the neighborhood by providing additional quality housing choices.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of
peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety,
The proposed rezone to RMF -16 would allow for a maximum density of IS units
per acre for the property according to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. This
would equate to approximately 140 residential units on 9.33 acres. This density
increase to the area would not negatively impact or be deemed incompatible with
the surrounding area which fronts Immokalee Road (CR 846), a key transportation
corridor in the area.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed multi - family residential project would manage all stormwater onsite
according to Collier County and South Florida Water Management District
regulations and would not adversely impact adjacent parcels.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The proposed multi- family residential project will be designed in accordance with
surrounding development and County LDC setback and buffer requirements.
10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent
area.
It is anticipated that the proposed multi- family residential project would positively
influence the property values in the adjacent area.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 16 of 101
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development
of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
We believe this proposed multi - family residential project would positively
influence the area as well as stimulate and improve the neighborhood.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
Granting this change would not constitute a special privilege. Granting this
change would bring the property is in conformance with the Immokalee Area
Master Plan and Future Land Use Map.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The existing zoning is incongruent with the envisioned Neighborhood Center that
focuses on a mix of neighborhood uses and residential densities to support them.
14. Whether the change suggested is out ofscale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the county.
The proposed multi- family use will meet the intent of the Neighborhood Center
district, including the intended mix of uses and densities. The development will
be compatible with surroundings and provide an additional housing choice in the
area
15. Whether it is impossible to f nd other adequate sites in the county for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
The current Immokalee Area Master Plan designates this area as Neighborhood
Center with the need for addition residential and non - residential projects. In
addition, the presently proposed Master Plan changes for this area designate it as
High Density Residential. This proposed zoning change for the subject parcel
would allow for a multi- family residential project that would fulfill what is
envisioned in both the current and proposed plans.
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.
The site is currently wooded with a mix of wetland areas and upland areas. A
minimum of 15% of the native vegetation will be retained. The existing wetlands
on the subject site will remain protected and unchanged. The remaining upland
portions of the site will be cleared for development as necessary.
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 def ned and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. U], as amended.
Item # 17D
There are more than adequate Public facilities and capacities available to Se tember 23, 2008
eq P ' d4 17 of 101
The proposed multi- family residential project would not compromise any enrr
levels of service already available.
According to letters received from utility providers, there exists sufficient
capacity to serve the proposed development.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
The conventional rezone petition for the subject property meets the intent of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan and more specifically, the Immokalee
Area Master Plan. Development of the property will have no adverse impacts on
surrounding areas in terms of stormwater run -off, environmental impacts,
compatibility, or property values. The multi- family housing proposed will also
serve a need for additional quality housing in the community.
9. 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 requested in
order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions.
10. Previous land use petitions on the subject aronerty: To your knowledge, has a public
hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that
_ hearing? NO
11. Additional Submittal requirements: In addition to this completed application, the
following shall be submitted in order for your application to be deemed sufficient, unless
otherwise waived during the pre - application meeting.
a. A copy of the pre- application meeting notes;
b. If this rezone is being requested for a specific use, provide fifteen (15) copies of a
24" x 36" conceptual site plan (16 copies if for affordable housing) [and one reduced
8' /z" x 11" copy of site plan], drawn to a maximum scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet,
depicting the following [Additional copies of the plan may be requested upon
completion of staff evaluation for distribution to the Board and various advisory
boards such as the Environmental Advisory Board (BAB), or CCPC]; N/A
• all existing and proposed structures and the dimensions thereof,
• provisions for existing and/or proposed ingress and egress (including pedestrian
ingress and egress to the site and the structure(s) on site),
• all existing and/or proposed parking and loading areas [include matrix indicating
required and provided parking and loading, including required parking for the
disabled],
• required yards, open space and preserve areas,
• proposed locations for utilities (as well as location of existing utility services to
the site),
• proposed and/or existing landscaping and buffering as may be required by the
County,
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008.
Page 18 of 101
c . An architectural rendering of any proposed structures. N/A
d. 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. N/A
e . 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.B.1.).
f. Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments and sketches);
g . A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), unless waived at the pre - application meeting;
h. A historical and archeological survey or waiver application if property is located
within an area of historical or archaeological probability (as identified at pre-
application meeting);
i . The petitioner must provide a letter of no objection from the United States Postal
Service prior to submittal of the application. Please contact Robert M. Skebe,
Growth Management Coordinator at:
U.S. Postal Service
1200 Goodlette Road
Naples, Florida 34102 -9998
Phone (239) 435 -2122; Fax (239) 435 -2160
j . Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional uses and
identified during the pre - application meeting, including but not limited to any
required state or federal permits.
Section 10.03.05.B3. of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to
remove their public hearing advertising 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
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 19 of 101
AFFIDAVIT
Well, Barry C3oldmeier being first duly sworn, depose and say that well arWare
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 hunter 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 forth, 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 Coastal Engineering Consultants. Inc.. Earthbalance.
and TR Transnortation Consultants. Inc. to act
as ourlmy representative in any matters
e of Property Owner
A+Rf?�! (50t_.r6^-i✓1 r=R
t'yyped or Printed Name of Owner
Signature of Property Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me� this day of
2007 by faft T %d1dY11P� who is ersonally known to n r has oduced
as identification.
NOTd'MMMIC•STAT OMORM4 C"L"Alk�
State of Florida * .... "t Crystal R. Mueller (Si ure of Notary Public - State of
County of Collier 4 �Fr`Ex�081DD9 p Florida) MAR
DOMW] MLPM7CIIONDING M INC.
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public)
Book 3531.- Page 409
I
Joseph a. Pn Lso 9y.ed alien 1m
Jo.aph J. welaasfold, s,
350 RLI i Aag0rU3a. Y.A.
sui 911/2050 tr►y
6vite 1120
coal Oela3ea, irlerlda 33134
rvadjbW bet: 00134000002
cme.nrM:
G,am.rzrfa:
Warranty Deed
3369723 OR: 3931 PG: 0409 3tr
ucaMO iR 0?1= II001 of Munk 001111, FL
x13013004 at 61:11M Mon 1, IMCI, Elm
cat 335900.01
MC RI 611
Oa•.f0 3215.11
3et0:
muHmu i IICIC34nt
sit Ilium 133 11121
cmi cau0 n 31BI
This Indenture, Modothis 23rd. dayor March r 2004 AD.. Between
Eunice McCoy, a /k /a Eat].Sae S. McCoy, an unremarried widow
or a. re.y or Lae , akk or Florida , greater, ..d
rmmo'ks ee, LLC, a Florida limited liability company
wbw..adea h: 1101 Brickoll Avenue; Suits 40221, Miami, FL 33131
a" town of Miami -Dada
s,.k or Florida , grantse.
Wit"meth Ream onnNrOR.r «wamwn.mc dw or,�ew, or _- twu.AM
.... _ _' — �_...__ - -T68 DOLLARS ($10)-------
and oem Rood wd a .. k eombkwmo w ORAATOR m hood pod by GRANTEE• a. n SN o,o,00, h hby ooj. `apd, ba
penod, bapba d odd w e. vW ORAN= ad ORANTEaa hdn. oo¢.sma and .nips ro.v.r. e. foRnvb, dvn'b.4 6.d..1 .k,
gh,ewebemlmaeuwn or Collier ska or Florida town:
The S1 /2 of the 11E1/4 of the SE3/4 of the 33E1/4 of Section 9, Township
47 South, Sangre 29 Rest, Collier County, Florida, lose the riht of wag
for County Road 846; Rod the 11/2 of the 1X1/4 of the SE1 /4 of the
M/4 of Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier county,
Florida, less right of way for County Scud 846.
.od to p"o, dots body fogy woono do dtm a add I.oi vd wH defwd d.: me epdea mwbd debm of dl foram rewmoemr.
In Whom Whereof, *..polo bv. hoaml.. W her bvd ..d .eW do do ad >en ed .Ewe wdem
S{Cy9ed, sealed and delhwvd ia asr promMm
O2''✓� "�'K. `�'K"p -I-� �.. Y (Sea)
Printed Hama: %oa 14, 310. rrW Eari4ws a/ a :&=line B.
Nitnena McCoy
F.O. Aden. 3719 Whom Arwm, Fon Myon FL 33916
Hems
Witness
STATE OF Florida
COUNTY OF 1n ran ,2004 by
T Rda[ I.sootnuo w ugowleegetl befoo me eb 23rd dry or March
Earline McCoy, a /k /a Berlins B. McCoy. an ..aremarried widow
stick pmamey rids driver' a license vldcvlldvdon.
taaam Ralelelo _�
t3oo. tap. ttwpa Gxt�l,o y!M1. `fN��
a..meswm Printed Hama•
notary Poblio
My csmmkd.e fiW.
Pagelte6 v 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 20 of 101
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 21 of 101
List of Corporation Owners
immokalee, LLC
Name of Owner Percentage of Ownership
Barry Goldmeier 50%
250 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 606
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Lee Goldmeier 50%
61 South Paramus Road, Box 1765
Paramus, N.J. 07652
I: \DATA�2004N4I30\2007_Ra e\Corp —tcow ersUstdoc
Division of Corporations
Florida Limited Liability
IMMOKALEE, LLC
PRINCIPAL ADDRESS
250 CATALONIA AVE
STE 606
CORAL GABLES FL 33134 US
Changed 03/23/2006
MAILING ADDRESS
PO BOX 279
MIAMI FL 33149 US
Changed 01/05/2007
Document Number
FEI Number
Date Filed
L03000038197
N /AE
10/07/2003
State
Status
Effective Date
Fl,
ACTIVE
NONE
Total Contribution
0.00
R P.O'1 Ctered Agent
Name & Address
GOLDMBffit, BARRY S
250 CATALONIA AVE
STE 606
CORAL GABLES FL 33134
Name Changed: 03/73/2006
Addm Chnged: 03/23/2006
Mn-wiger/Member Detail
Name & Address _� . Title 11
250 CATALONIA AVb s M WO MGR
CORAL GABLES FL 33134
Peg ddtg 17D
Sep ember 23, 2008
Page 22 of 101 ,
t, w... 1i .............. .s,:.,.,r,. /..,.,;..r.. /�..rAPi P�P9a 1= TlFTFTT.RrnI =T m(nnn'AR1 R7R•n9= NAX4FW 71?,7/9(1t17
Division of Corporations
Annual Reports
Report Year
Filed Date
2006
04/1312005
2006
03=006
2007
01/051=
No Events
No Name History Information
Document Images
Listed below are the images available for this Ming.
PaggeMi#217D
September 23, 2008
Page 23 of 101
W.7/7,007
2007 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT fa FILED 007
DOCUMENT# L03000038187 Secretary of State
Entity Name: IMMOKALEE, LLC
Current Principal Place of Business.
250 CATALONIA AVE
STE 606
CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 US
Current Mailing Address:
250 CATALONIA AVE
STE SOS
CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 US
FM Number. FM Number Applied For( )
Name and Address of Current Registered Agent
GOLDME{ER, BARRY S
250 CATALONIA AVE
STE SD6
CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 US
New Principal Place of Business:
New Mailing Address:
PO BOX 279
MIAMI, FL 33149 US
FFJ Number Not AppFOffiIs (X) CerDfieste of Status Desired ( )
Name and Address of New Registered Agent
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 24 of 101
The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both,
in the State of Florida.
SIGNATURE
Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date
MANAGING MENIBERSMANAGgRa:
Tift MGR ( ) Delete
Name: GDLDMEIER (NJ) LTD,
Addraes: 250 CATALONIA AVE STE 606
iiky-at -9p: CORAL GABLE$ FL 33134
ADOMONSICHANGES:
Tina: ( )Charge ()Addition
Name:
Address:
Clty-St -ZO:
I hereby certify that the information supplied with this filing does not qualWor the for the exemption stated in Chapter 179,
Florida Statutes. I further certify that the Information Indlcated on this report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature
shall have the same legal effect as 9 made under oath; that I am a managing member or manager of the limited liability company
or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 608, Florida Statutes.
SIGNATURE SARRYGOLDMEIER RA 01!0512007
Electronic Signature of Signing Managing Member, Manager, or Authorized Representafive / Date
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 25 of 101
IMMOKALEE ROAD/ SCHOOL DRIVE PARCEL
PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared for:
Immokalee, LLC
250 Catalonia Ave. Suite 606
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Submitted to:
Collier County Environmental Service Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Prepared by:
EarthBalance®
2579 North Toledo Blade Boulevard
North Port, Florida 34289
(941) 426 -7878
MAY 2007
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 26 of 101
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide the results of the April 16, 2007 protected species
survey and environmental assessment for the 9.33 acre Immokalee site in accordance
with a rezoning application submitted for the subject parcel. The project site is bordered
by School Drive to the north, C.R 846 to the east, and vacant land to the south and west
in Section 9, Township 47S, Range 29E, Collier County, Florida.
The purpose of the site visit was to conduct a habitat assessment of the site and conduct a
wildlife survey to identify the presence or absence of protected wildlife species,
specifically Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), red - cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). In
addition, a protected plant species survey was conducted to determine the presence or
absence of protected plant species onsite.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The vegetative communities occurring on the 9.33 -acre site were evaluated as potential
habitat for protected wildlife and plant species. The upland areas onsite were surveyed
for their potential to support the listed gopher tortoise and red- cockaded woodpecker. In
addition, Collier County staff has also requested the survey of the site for Big Cypress
fox squirrel. Upland and wetland habitats onsite were also surveyed for protected plant
species that may occur.
Site observations, in conjunction with the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida
(1998) and aerial photographs, were used to develop a map of the habitats on site
according to the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) —
Figure 1. The following is a description of the habitats observed within the property
boundaries:
FLUCCS CODES HABITAT DESCRIPTION ACREAGE
UPLANDS
411 /422
Pine FlatwoodsBrazilian Pepper
2.64
422
Brazilian Pepper
3.55
810
Road
0.23
TOTAL UPLANDS 6.42 acres
WETLANDS
422 -H
H dric Brazilian Pepper
0.63
510
Ditch
0.80
618 -1
Disturbed Willow Marsh
0.24
621 -1
Disturbed Cypress Slough
0.98
641
Freshwater Marsh
0.26
TOTAL WETLANDS 2.91 acres
TOTAL ACREAGE 933
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 27 of 101
UPLAND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS
Pine FlatwoodsBrazllian Pepper - FLUCCS 41V422
Within this habitat, slash pine (Pinus elhottiz). and Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius) are dominant. Subdominant species include saw palmetto (Serena
repens), saltbush (Baccharis halimtfolia), myrsine (Myrsine sp.), wild coffee (Psychotria
spp.), wax myrtle (Myriica cerifera), cedar (Juniperus spp.), and oak (Quercus spp.). The
groundcover is dominated by broom grass (Andropogon virginicus), catbrier (Smilax sp.),
blackberry (Rubus sp.), and bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), and other weedy species
occur as minor associations within this habitat. No protected wildlife species were
observed within this habitat, due to the invasive coverage by Brazilian pepper.
Brazilian Pepper — FLUCCS 422
The majority of the site is infested with Brazilian pepper. The Brazilian pepper forms
dense thickets throughout this habitat. No protected species were observed or are
expected within this habitat due to heavy shading.
Road — FLUCCS 810
A road runs along the northern boundary of the property.
WETLAND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS
Ditch — FLUCCS 510
This habitat is an open water canal dominated by the exotic species, water lettuce (Pistia
stratiotes) and Brazilian pepper, in addition to willow (Salix caroliniana). This feature
was most likely excavated from wetlands and appears to be currently used as stormwater
drainage for the development to the north.
Disturbed Willow Marsh - FLUCCS 618 -1
This habitat is dominated by willow and Brazilian pepper and is located along the fringes.
This marsh is connected to the freshwater herbaceous marsh and ditch to the north and
west.
Disturbed Cypress Swamp - FLUCCS 621 -1
This habitat is a part of a larger cypress slough system that extends off site to the south
and east of the property. The vegetation is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum). Red maple (Ater mbmm), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), swamp fern
(Blechnum sermlatum), and Brazilian pepper are subdominant. The habitat is good
quality with the exception of slight invasion of Brazilian pepper along the edge of the
wetland area.
Freshwater Marsh - FLUCCS 641
This habitat is dominated by maidencane (Pamcum hemitomon). Additional species
observed in the marsh included alligator flag (Thalia geniculata), Virginia buttonweed
(Diodia virginiana), primrose willow (Ludwigia repens), and wax myrtle (MyHca
cerifera). There was approximately 4 feet of standing water in the wetland at the time of
the survey. This marsh is connected to the ditch that is to the west.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 28 of 101
3.0 METHODOLOGY
A formal protected wildlife and plant survey was conducted on April 16, 2007 to
determine the presence or absence of protected wildlife species onsite and the general
location, density, and species of protected plants located within the project site. All
endangered, threatened, and commercially exploited plants found in Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services Chapter 5B- 40.0055 Regulated Plant Index were
included in the survey. In addition, more mature slash pine and cypress trees were all
closely inspected for epiphytic species including Tiliandsia sp. that could occur onsite.
Survey methods consisted of linear and meandering pedestrian transects throughout the
project area and species - specific survey methodology is described below.
GOPHER TORTOISE
Biologists located suitable gopher tortoise habitat during the preliminary field visits. A
formal 100% survey of suitable gopher tortoise habitat was completed for the parcel in
accordance with FWC guidelines.
BIG CYPRESS FOX SQUIRREL
Surveys were conducted within areas of the potential Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat.
Biologists surveyed for fox squirrels by meandering through all areas of suitable habitat.
Biologists stopped, looked, and listened at open locations that allowed visibility of
suitable habitat_ Biologists looked for signs of fox squirrel activity, such as pinecone
remains, nests, scat, and tracks.
RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER
According to the Standardized State- Listed Animal Surveys Procedures obtained from
FWC, the red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically prefer habitats such as pinelands
with mature trees of an age of 60 years or more, habitats that have an open mid -story, and
areas where regular burns occur. Although a very limited amount of the project area
contains large pine trees, most of this habitat is not suitable for RCW nesting because of
the invasion of Brazilian pepper. The area was surveyed for RCW utilization during the
wildlife survey. All sides of suitable pine trees were checked for nest cavities, start holes,
or birds.
4.0 RESULTS/DLSCUSSION
During the April 2007 protected species survey, no protected wildlife species or evidence
of protected wildlife species were observed onsite. As mentioned, protected wildlife
surveys focused on Big Cypress fox squirrel, red - cockaded woodpecker, and gopher
tortoise. No fox squirrel nests or day beds were observed in any of the slash pine or
cypress trees observed onsite. Similarly, no red - cockaded woodpecker nest cavities were
observed in any of the slash pine trees during the survey. In addition, no gopher tortoise
burrows were observed within any of the upland habitats observed onsite.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 29 of 101
Several wading birds were observed during the survey, of which snowy egret, tri- colored
heron, and white ibis are listed by the FWC as Species of Special Concern. No wading
birds were observed roosting or nesting on site.
A review of the FWC eagle nest locator database shows that one known eagle nest is
located more than 4 miles east of the project site. No bald eagles were observed and no
nests were observed in the canopy on site or within the vicinity of the project boundary.
Therefore, there are no known bald eagle nests that affect the site.
Protected plant species were observed during the protected species survey (Table 1).
None of the identified plants are federally listed, one is listed as endangered in Florida,
and one is listed as threatened in Florida. All of the identified protected plant species are
epiphytic and are found on the slash pine, Brazilian pepper, and cypress tree within the
site. At the time of this survey, the locations of the plants observed were not flagged in
the field as these plants were dispersed throughout the habitats onsite. The exact
locations of these plants will be flagged and located using a Global Positioning System
(GPS) closer to the time of the proposed relocation to ensure the relocation of all plants
(new and existing) to the onsite preserve. Density of Tillandsia species varied throughout
the upland and wetland habitats onsite.
Table 1. Listed plant species observed during the April 2007 survey
Species Common Name State Status Federal Status-
Tillandsia balbisiana
Inflated wild-pine
T
Tillandsia utriculata
Giant wild-pine
JE
Tillandsia species present on the trees that will be cleared for development will be
relocated to suitable pine or cypress trees within the onsite preserve area prior to
construction. Relocation of the plants will be conducted by a professional with
experience in arboreal plant relocations. The long -term management of the onsite
preserve will ensure continued protection to these species upon relocation.
5.0 CONCLUSION
All endangered, threatened, and commercially exploited plants found in Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Chapter 5B- 40.0055 Regulated Plant
Index were included in the survey.
Specific protected wildlife species that were surveyed for include Big Cypress fox
squirrel nests and day beds, red - cockaded woodpecker nest cavities, and gopher tortoise
burrows. None of these protected wildlife species or evidence of these species were
observed during the survey.
Protected plant species observed within the habitats onsite were observed in limited
amounts. Tillandsia species were only observed to occur on more mature slash pine and
cypress trees. The density of protected plant species observed varied from low to
moderate to high within both upland and wetland habitats. No protected plant species
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 30 of 101
were observed on any Brazilian pepper trees onsite. Any listed species that may be
disturbed at the time of the proposed development will be relocated to suitable habitat
within the onsite preserve prior to the commencement of construction of the
development.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 31 of 101
FIGURE I
HABITATIFLUCCS MAP
G
in r' r'
'a
F
.. low, o ; CDr
ti
r. r
Y f t �. 3 •� �
w'
iPevt
� 1
u
/ r r
F � r
Lar•^ �
r �
1
33 MY w 7 t
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 33 of 101
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
IMMOKALEE ROAD MULTI - FAMILY
(PROJECT NO. 0703.21)
PREPARED BY:
TR Transportation Consultants, Inc.
13881 Plantation Road, Suite 11
Fort Myers, Florida 33912 -4339
Certificate of Authorization #27003
239 - 278 -3090
July 16, 2007
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 34' of 101
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC. CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
H. EXISTING CONDITIONS
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
IV. TRIP GENERATION
V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION
VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
VII. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY AND IMPROVEMENTS
VIII. CONCLUSION
�j TRANSPORTATION
(`1 CONSULTANTS, INC.
I. INTRODUCTION
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 35 of 101
TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for the
proposed standard re- zoning submittal of the hnmokalee Road Multi- Family site located
on the west side of S. 1st Street (Immokalee Road) to the south of its intersection with
School Road in Immokalee area of Collier County, Florida This report has been
completed in compliance with the guidelines established by the Collier County
Transportation Planning Division for developments seeking approval for re- zoning. The
site location is illustrated on Figure 1.
The proposed standard re -zone would modify the existing zoning on the subject site to
allow a maximum of 140 multi - family dwelling units on the subject site. This report
examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. Trip generation
will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development
on the surrounding intersections. A methodology meeting was held with Collier County
Staff on April 4, 2007 for reference.
IL EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject site currently consists of vacant land. The site is bordered to the north by
School Road, to the east by S. I" Street, and to the south and west by additional vacant
land.
S 1st Street (Immokalee Road) is a north/south two -lane arterial roadway in the vicinity
of the subject site. S. 1" Street has a posted speed limit of 45 mph adjacent to the site and
it is under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Transportation. The Level of
Service Standard on this section of S. 1st Street from SR 29 to Oil Well Road is LOS "D ",
or 860 vehicles.
Page 1
TRANSPORTATION HKOJECT LOCATION MAP
CONSULTANTS, INC. IMMOKALEE ROAD MULTI - FAMILY Figure 1
�j TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 37 of 101
The proposed re- zoning of the humokalee Road Multi - Family site will allow for the
construction of a total of 140 multi - family dwelling units. Specifically, Table 1
summarizes the use for the proposed re -zone on the subject site.
Table 1
Immokalee Road Multi - Family
Proposed Uses
.1.111.1 . y 0.1A So ..........
Residential Condominium/
140 dwelling units
Townhouse
Access to the subject site will be determined at the SDP phase for the Immokalee Road
Multi- Family development However, strictly for analysis purposes, it was assumed that
the proposed development would consist of a single full access to S. Is` Street near the
southern property boundary.
W. TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation calculations were performed for the residential use proposed as a part of
the subject re -zone on the site. The trip generation for the proposed re- zoning was
determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled
Trip Generation, 7s' Edition. For the multi - family dwelling units proposed as a part of
this project, Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse) was utilized for
trip generation purposes. Table 2 indicates the trip generation of the uses proposed as a
result of this re- zoning. The trip generation equations utilized to calculate the trip
generation can be found within the Appendix of this report for reference.
Page 3
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Table 2
Immokalee Road Multi - Family
Tr:n !`_on orafinn
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 39 of 1 a
7v+1SJ1�
7 �riaR'vs z"7r�,rvr #trLOt�I't t�' knit rF�°..
r� t; v�,tiEllr .?^
7;%�
V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The new trips based on the proposed re- zoning indicated within Table 2 were then
assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the anticipated routes the drivers
will utilize to approach the site. The resultant traffic distribution is indicated in Figure 2
as approved within the methodology meeting held with Staff.
Based on the traffic distribution indicated within Figure 2, the development traffic was
distributed to the surrounding roadway network. Figure 3 indicates the site traffic
assignment to the probable site access driveway as a part of the proposed Immokalee
Road Multi- Family site. Additionally, the site traffic was assigned to the area roadway
links as a part of Figure 1A, located within the Appendix of this report for reference.
VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly
impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which
roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2 % -2 % -3%
Significance Test.
The new external project related traffic from Table 2 was compared with the corrected
10 -month Level of Service Standard for Peak Hour — Peak Direction traffic conditions in
order to determine the project impact percentage. Based on the information contained
wiihira Tab u°. 1 A, Q'. Is' Qt—t adi°rent to the suhiert property ig expected to experience a
�......,. __�___a.__r _
Page 4
LEGEND
4 -20%-*- PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
0
O
w
W
QJ
Y
O
w
W
co
H
N
m
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
CONSULTANTS, INC. IMMOKALEE ROAD MULTI - FAMILY
10
5
Figure 2
S
ber
1
LEGEND I
t- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
Al-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
TRANSPORTATION SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
CONSULTANTS, INC. IMMOKALEE ROAD MULTI - FAMILY Figure 3
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008,
Page 41 of 101
significant impact due to the low 10 -month service volume standard on this roadway.
Therefore, Level of Service analysis has been performed on this section of S. I" Street
( Immokalee Road) from Oil Well Road to SR 29.
In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table IA also includes a buildout
concurrency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The Collier County TIS
Guidelines require analysis of the adjacent roadway network based on the five (5) year
planning window. Therefore, it was necessary to analyze the surrounding roadway
network based on the 2012 traffic conditions. However, it is likely that the re- zoning
hearing for the proposed Immokalee Road Multi- Family site will not be held until the
year 2008, so the analysis performed within Table IA actually reflects 2013 traffic
conditions in an effort to analyze an additional year.
The total volume indicated within the 2006 Collier County Annual Update Inventory
.Report (AUIR) reflects the current remaining capacity on the adjacent roadway network.
The remaining capacity was subtracted from the 10 -month service volume on each
roadway in order to determine the 2007 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic
volume on the adjacent roadway network. The appropriate annual growth rate for
Immokalee Road was taken from the 2006 Collier County Average Daily Traffic Report.
An example of the calculations to determine the annual growth rate can be found within
the Appendix of this report for reference. The annual growth rate was then used to factor
the 2007 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume to 2013 peak season, peak
hour, peak direction background traffic conditions.
The resultant 2013 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume was subtracted
from the Level of Service Standard in order to determine the remaining capacity in the
year 2013. The project generated traffic was then subtracted from the remaining capacity
in order to determine the remaining 2013 capacity after the hmmokalee Road Multi -
Family re- zoning traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network. Figure 4
indicates the results of the capacity analysis along S. 1" Street adjacent to the subject site.
Page 7
0
a
0
re
w
w
JQ
Y
O
f-
w
w
CY
F
h
m
C
1
oI
LEGEND
000 CURRENT REMAINING CAPACITY
(000) REMAINING CAPACITY W AM PROJECT TRAFFIC
[D00] REMAINING CAPACITY W/ PM PROJECT TRAFFIC
0.0% PROJECT IMPACT PERCENTAGE �
TRANSPORTATION 2013 BUILD -OUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
CONSULTANTS, INC. IMMOKALEE ROAD MULTI- FAMILY Figure 4
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 43 of 101
TRANSPORTATION
I CONSULTANTS, INC.
VII. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY AND IMPROVEMENTS
Based upon the information contained within Table IA, S. I" Street is shown to operate
acceptably after the addition of the Immokalee Road Multi- Family traffic. Therefore, the
proposed development is expected to be consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Collier County
Growth Management Plan. Thus, no roadway link improvements will be required as a
result of the proposed Immokalee Road Multi- Family re- zoning.
Intersection analysis was not required as a result of the methodology meeting held for the
proposed development. Specifically, the Immokalee Road Multi- Family site is a standard
re -zone, so no site plan is required to complete this re -zone. As such, the access for the
proposed development is not finalized until the SDP phase. Thus, as a part of the SDP
submittal for the Immokalee Road Multi- Family site, an intersection analysis at the
project access point(s) as well as a turn lane analysis at the access point(s) will be
performed.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The proposed re- zoning application for the Immokalee Road Multi- Family site is
consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Policy 5.1. The subject
parcel is located along the west side of S. 1" Street at its intersection with School Road in
Collier County, Florida. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the
2013 buildout traffic conditions. As a result, all roadways were shown to operate
acceptably after the addition of the proposed re- zoning of the Immokalee Road Multi-
Family site.
Intersection analysis and turn lane analysis will be performed as a part of the SDP
submittal for the proposed development. The proposed re- zoning does not require the
creation of a site plan, so the access configuration on the subject site is not available at
the re- zoning stage. However, the site access intersection and tam lane requirements will
Page 9
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 44 of 101
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
be reviewed in depth as a part of the SDP submittal when a site plan is required for the
subject site.
In closing, the proposed re- zoning of the Immokalee Road Multi- Family site is shown to
satisfy the Collier County Growth Management Plan requirements indicated within the
Transportation Element. Therefore, the surrounding roadway network will operate
acceptably after the addition of the proposed development traffic.
Page 1D
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 45 of 101
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008.
Page 46 of 101
TABLE lA
#m #17
September 23, 2008
Page Rym,
§§k2 §§
■E §!!■
� \�% ■_
222!«
\
f §§!§
<
G
.
§
) §■..
§�
kK
§(| ||
§2
2)§
�,
�}\
�
!!
§
//
§,!
f
\
!!
!
!■
.
:2
§\
`�
)§
«!
§ |!
}}
�
§�
a[
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 48 of 101
FIGURE IA
EL
TRANSPORTATION NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC
CONSULTANTS, INC. IMMOKALEE ROAD MULTI - FAMILY Figure 1A
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 50 of 101
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE
CALCULATIONS
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 51 of 101
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS
ROADWAY SEGMENT
S. 1 st Street N. of She
(Immokalee Rcf) S. of She
' All tralAC volumes were taken from the 2GG8 Collar County Av ge Dally Traffic Report
SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION
2006 ADT "(Vris of Gmwlh)
Annual Growth Rate (AGR) -1
Base Year ADT
"(t l4)
AGR IS 1st Street) = 8848 -1
10285
AGR (S. 1st Street) - 3.83%
2006
ANNUAL
BASE YR
TRAFFIC
YRS OF
GROWTH
TRAFFIC
VOLUME
GROWTH
RAT
8848
10265
4
3.83%
8848
10285
4
3.83%
' All tralAC volumes were taken from the 2GG8 Collar County Av ge Dally Traffic Report
SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION
2006 ADT "(Vris of Gmwlh)
Annual Growth Rate (AGR) -1
Base Year ADT
"(t l4)
AGR IS 1st Street) = 8848 -1
10285
AGR (S. 1st Street) - 3.83%
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 52 of 101
TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008.
Page 53 of 101
TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS
IMMOKALEE ROAD MULTI - FAMILY
ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 7t't EDITION
Land Use
Weekda 'AM Peak Hour
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Weekda
Residential Condo/
Townhouse
UC 230
Ln = 0.80 Ln + 026
(17% In/83% Out)
Ln (7) - 0.82 Ln (X) + 032
(67% hV33% Out)
Ln (T) = 0.85 La (X) + 2.55
T = Trips, X = dwellin units
COASTAL
ENGINEERING
NONSULTANTS
A CECI GROUP COMPANY
October 22, 2007
Mr. Willie Brown, AICP
Principal Planner
Collier County Govemment
Zoning and Land Development Review Department
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RE: RZ- 2007 -AR -12044 — Immokalee LLC, RAI #1 RESPONSE
(CEC File No. 04.130)
Dear Mr. Brown:
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008.
Pave 54 Of 101
CECI ovp services
Civil Engineering
Planning Services
Survey 6 Mapping
Coastal Engineering
Real Estate Services
Webslte:w .coastalengineering.com
The following comments are in response to staff comments for the referenced project. We have provided
the original comments from your letter followed by our responses in italics and bold.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CURRENT PLANNING
Willie Brown, AICP, Principal Planner
I" Review Comments (8- 20 -07) - Informational
General Comments:
A public participation meeting is required. Please coordinate the required
public notice and neighborhood information meeting through the Community
Planning Coordinator Linda Bedtelyon who may be reached by phone at 213-
2948 or by email at LindaBedtelyont7a Collier og v net .
CECResponse:
We held a neighborhood information meeting on October 9, 2007.
• Please coordinate all public hearing signs with the Project Planner (Willie
Brown) and Community Planning Coordinator (Linda Bedtelyon).
CECReaonse:
We will coordinate all as required, when required.
• Please provide 'a proper name for the project (see Addressing comments on page
7).
CEC Response:
We do not have specific development details at this time because this is
a standard rezone and not a PUD. We will submit a proposed project
name prior to, or at the SDP phase.
I:\DATA\200410413T2007_R<zo caM #1�04130_R U Response Letrar20071015.dm
3106 S. Horseshoe Drive. Naples, Florida 341 04- 61 37 • Phone (239) 643 -2324 Fax (239) 643 -1143
SE.PVLUG FL�,RJPA .SINCE 1ni-
E-M -el l: info ®ceciil.com
Leder to Mr. W/fis Brown, AICP
RE RZ-2007AR- 1204'4, 1m kalee LX
October 22, 2007
Page 2 of 10
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 55 of 101
Please schedule a meeting with the Transportation Department Project Manager
John Podczerwinsky to resolve all reject items. Most comments are
informational and may be addressed at SDP review.
CECResponse (TB Transportation Rob Price):
A meeting was held between TR Transportation, our traffic
engineering sub - consultant' and County Transportation staff on
August 29, 2007 to discuss the outstanding issues.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TRANSPORTATION
John Podccerwinsky, Project Manager
Standard Checklist Item:
TIS Requirements (LDC 6.02.03 D.1 -7; TIS Guidelines)
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1d Review Comments (8- 16 -07) — Reiected
1) Please revise Distribution. Reviewer disagrees that a multi- family residential development
would distribute 50% of its vehicular trips away from the nearby city in favor of the rural area
to the South. Please provide documentation of Staff approval of this distribution.
CEC Response PPR Transportation Rob Price):
No changes to the distribution are required as a result of the meeting on August 30,
2007. This distribution was approved as apart of the methodology meeting held with
Collier County Staff prior to completion of the TLS
2) Access at School Road should be reviewed.
CEC Response. (TR Transportation -Rob Price):
No access analysis is required as a part of a standard re- zoning request The access
driveways will be determined as a part of the SDP submittal on this site.
3) Turn lane requirements should be analyzed.
CECResponse (TR )-ansportation -Rob Price):
Turn lane requirements are to be determined at the SDP phase in accordance with
any re- zoning analysis once specific development parameters are available.
Additionally, as apart of a standard re-zone, the access driveways are not established
until the SDP phase. As such, no turn lane analysis is feasible at this time.
4) Show background growth percentages used for 2013 analysis.
CEC Response (TR Transportation Rob Price)'
The Appendix of the original report contained a spreadsheet that clearly indicates
the method utilized to obtain the 2013 traffic projections. No revision is necessary as
a result of this comment.
1: 1DATA\2004W4130\2007_Razone\RAI #1 \04130 RAI Response Letter=71015.doc
Letter to Mr. MI& Brown, ATOP
RE RZ2007AR- 12044.Immokvd eLLC
Ocbber22, 2007
Pape 3 of 10
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 56 of 101,
5) Project impacts are significant since they are above 2% on the first link. Please provide a
complete 2 % -2 % -3% analysis in accordance with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of
the GNU.
CEC Response (72? T ransoortation Rob Price):
Based on the methodology meeting held with Staff, analysis was only requested on S.
1" Street adjacent to the site. Regardless, a calculation has been included within this
response to address the 2 % -2% -3 % Significance Test The Level of Service Standard
on SR 29 at its intersection with S. Za Street is 1,860 vehicles according to the AVM
No distribution was shown to SR 29 as a part of the original report based on the
methodology meeting. However, the original analysis did show 50% of the project
traffic headed towards SR 29 on S. 1" Street. Should all of this 50% of the
development traffic (30 vehicles) impact SR 29, the impact to this roadway would be
1.6% of the Level of Service Standard (30 vehicles/1,860 vehicles). 1.6% is below
2.0 %, so no analysis is required beyond S. I' Street:
6) Please provide all documentation from staff regarding the exclusion of intersection analyses
from this report.
CEC Response (TA Transportation Rob Price):
Based on the meeting held with Staff and the original methodology meeting, no
intersection analysis is required as the access to this development will not be
finalized until the SDP phase.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
Access Management (LDC 4.03.08 A.1-4; Ord. 01 -246)
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1" Review Comments (8- 16 -07) - Rejected
Applicant must demonstrate compliance with Collier County's Access Management policy (Res.
01 -247) by showing graphically where site accesses will be located in relation to adjacent
intersections at SDP review. Access should be located on "School Road". A direct connection to
Immokalee Rd. is discouraged.
CECRemoonse:
We will address all site design issues and requirements at time of SDP.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
Additional Comments
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1' Review Comments (8 -16 -077) - Rejected
The developer must make the following commitments as a condition of the Rezone:
Commitments:
A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement marking, and design criteria shall be in accordance
with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum
IADATA2004 \04130\2007_Rewne\RA7 #1 \04130_RAI Response Letter20071015.doc
Letter to Mr. M& Sown, ATOP
RE RZ2007 AR.12044,1m kaW LLC
October 22, 2007
Page 4 of 10
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 57 of 101
Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual
On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition.
CEC Response:
This is a standard LDC compliance item which shall be adhered to.
B. Arterial -level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting shall be in
place prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy (CO).
CEC Response:
7iais is a standard LDC compliance item which shall be adhered to.
C. Access Points shown on the PUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. The number of
access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however,
no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is approved.
CECResponse:
This project is not a PUD nor was there a master plan submitted nis comment is
not applicable to this standard re -zone project Access points will be determined at
time of SDP.
D. Site related improvements (as opposed to system related improvements) necessary for safe
ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for
impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the Public
prior to commencement of on -site construction.
CECResponse:
This is a standard LDC compliance item which shall be adhered to.
E. Nothing in any Development Order (DO) shall vest a right of access in excess of a right -
infright -out condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a
point of egress, or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of
action for damages against the County by the Developer, its successor in title, or assignee.
Collier County reserves the right to close any median opening existing at any time which is
found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the Public. Any such modifications
shall be based on, but not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity.
CECResponse:
This is a standard LDC compliance item which shall be adhered to.
F. If any required tun lane improvement requires the use of existing County Rights -of -Way or
easement(s), then compensating Right -of -Way shall be provided at no cost to Collier County
as a consequence of such improvement(s) upon final approval of the turn lane design during
the first subsequent development order. The typical cross section may not differ from the
existing roadway unless approved, in writing, by the Transportation Division Administrator or
his designee.
CECResponse:
This is a standard LDC compliance item which shall be adhered to.
I:\ DATA12004\0413012007_Rezone \RAI #1104130_RAI Response Lette20071015.doc
Leer to Mr. Willie arom, ACP
RE. RZ- 1007- AR- 11046,b+unakaWLLC
October 22, 2007
Page 5 of 10
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 58 of 101
G. If; in the sole opinion of Collier County, traffic signal(s), other traffic control device, sign,
pavement marking improvement within a public Right of Way or Easement, or site related
improvements (as opposed to system related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and
egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, is determined to be necessary, the cost
of such improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns.
The improvements shall be paid for or installed, at the County's discretion, prior to the
appropriate corresponding CO.
CEC Response:
This is a standard LDC compliance item which shall be adhered to.
The following comments are informational and may include stipulations:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LANDSCAPE PLANNING
Bob Wright, Landscape Architect
Standard Checklist Item:
Submit a consistent Landscape Plan and Site Plan. LDC 10.02.0l.A.l.a i. and ii.
CEC Response:
This will be provided at time of SDP.
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
i" Review Comments (8- 20-07) - Informational
Refer to LDC Section 4.06 and show the width of all code required perimeter landscape buffers at
SDP review. Refer to Pre - Application meeting notes for perimeter buffer widths.
CECResponse:
This will be provided at time of SDP.
LANDSCAPE PLANNING
Standard Checklist Item:
Show adjacent out- parcelfshopping center /subdivision.
CECAMonse:
This will be provided at time of SDP.
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1" Review Comments (8- 20 -07) - Informational
Please show adjacent zonings and land -uses on site plan at SDP review.
CECResponse:
This will be provided at dme of SDP.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TRANSPORTATION
John Podczerwinsky, Project Manager
Standard Checklist Item:
Private Roadways (Subdivisions) (LDC- 6.06.01 A -H, LDC 10.02.05 E.2.m)
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
I:\DATA12DD4\0413012DD7 Rezone \RAI 161 \04130_RAI Response Lette2D071015.00c
Letter to Mr. MOD Brown, A/CP
RE RZ2007 AR- 12044, bTlRlek4 /BC LLC
October 22, 2007
Page 6 a 10
1" Review Comments (8- 16 -07) - In ormational
Roadways must be labeled "Private" and right of way widths must be shown at SDP review.
CBCResgnnse:
This will be provided at time of SDP.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
Sight Distance Triangle (LDC 6.06.05; Ord. 2003 -37)
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1" Review Comments (8- 16-07) - Informational
Applicant must demonstrate that a clear sight
entrances.
CECResponse:
This MH be provided at time of SDP.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
Turn Lanes (LDC 10.02.05; Ord. 2003 -37)
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 59 of 101
distance triangle will be maintained at project
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1" Review Comments (8- 16 -07) - formational
Conceptual tam lane locations must be shown as recommended by the TIS or in compliance with
Collier County s Right of Way handbook.
CECResaonse:
This will be provided at time of SDP.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
Right -of -Way (Ord. 2003 -37)
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1" Review Comments (8- 16 -07) - Informational
If connection to a publicly owned roadway is proposed, a right of way permit is necessary. If a
right of way dedication is necessary to provide adequate public facilities (i.e. roadway
infrastructure to serve the project) it must be shown on the site plan as well.
CEC Response:
This will be provided at lime of SDP.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
Traffic Control (LDC 6.06.01
S, 6.06.01 Ql; Ord. 2003 -377)
1:1DATA12004W41 3 012 0 07 RmomXRAI #1104130_RAI Response Letter20071015.doo
Latter to Mr. Me Brown. MCP
RE A7-2007-AP-12044,1m kaW LLC
October Z2, 2007
Page 7 of 10
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 60 of 101
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1" Review Comments (8- 16 -07) - Informational
Traffic controls such as sigaalization, signage, and pavement markings must be demonstrated by
inclusion of a conceptual site plan.
CECRewo
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
Roadway Drainage (LDC 10.02.05 E.2.j.iv, 6.06.01 A -H; Ord, 2003 -37)
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
I" Review Comments (8- 16 -07) - Formational
The reviewer cannot determine if the roadway drainage is impacted.
CEC Response:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
Traffic Circulation (LDC 4.02.17 A.8, 5.05.08 E.I.b)
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1" Review Comments (8- 16-07) - Informational
Reviewer is unable to determine if traffic circulation issues will exist without a site plan.
CECResponse:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
TUmat Length/Curb Radii (ROW Handbook pg 18 -19)
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
I" Review Comments (8- 16 -07) - IFormational
Throat length cannot be reviewed.
CECResponse:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
Access Lighting (LDC 6.06.03)
1:1DA7A\2004\D413D\2DD7_Re one \RAI #1 \04130_RAI Response Lstler20071015.doc
Lefler to Mr. Mile Grown, A1CP
_. RE: R7-2007- AR- 12044, tmmA21eeLLC
October 22, 2007
Page 6 of 10
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 61 of 101
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
la Review Comments (8- 16 -07) - Informational
Site lighting is a requirement of the developer's commitments, required by the "additional
comments" portion of this checklist.
CEC&Wonse:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
TRANSPORTATION
Standard Checklist Item:
GMP Transportation Element Policies 5.1 and 5.2 analysis and review comments
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1" Review Comments (8- 16 -07) - Informational
Refer to TIS comments. Not consistent with policy 5.1.
CECResponse (TR Transportation -Rob Price):
As stated in the original TLS, sufficient capacity is available to serve the proposed
Immokalee Road multi family site. As such, the proposed development is consistent with
Policy 5.1 of the Collier County Growth Management Plan as noted within the TIS.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Claudia Piotrowicz, Environmental Specialist
Standard Checklist Item:
Wetland line shall be approved by SFWNM and delineated on the site plan. (GNP Policy 6.2.1)
CECResponse:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1°t Review Comments (8 -17 -07) - Informational
The official ID lines shall be provided at the next development order.
CEC Response:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Standard Checklist Item:
Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be
retained and the maximum amount that is to be re- created. Clearly identify the location of both on
the site plan. (LDC 3.05.07.13-1), F H.l.d -e.)
CECResponse:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
I:\OATA12004\041 3 0120 0 7_Re one \RAJ #1 \04130_RAJ Response Letter20071015.doc
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Letter to Mr. W19k Brown, A1CP Page 62 of 101,
RE, It7-2007AR- 12044,Im kalee LLC
October 22, 2007
Page 9 of 10
Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item:
1' Review Comments (8- 17 -07) - Informational
Calculations shall be provided at the next development order - 15% of the site.
CECResponse:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Standard Checklist Item:
Preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in Policy 6.1.1(4) of the GMP and
shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off -site preservation areas or wildlife
corridors. (GMT Policy 6.1.1(9))
CEC Response:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
1s` Review Comments (8- 17 -07) - Infornwtional
The preserve area must be located at the south of the properly FLUCFCS 621 to provide
connectivity with adjacent wetland.
CECResponse:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Additional Comments: - Informational
At the next development order the wetland permits shall be provided. Please provide a wading
bird management plan at the site development plan.
CECResoonse:
Tltis information can be provided at time of SDP.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Standard Checklist Item: - Formational
Preserve areas and created preserves shall meet the minimum width requirements. (LDC
3.05.07.H.1.e.)
CEC Response:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Standard Checklist Item: - Informational
All principal structures shall have a minimum setback of 25' from the boundary of any preserve.
Accessory structures and all other site alterations shall have a minimum 10 -foot setback. (LDC
3.05.07.11.3; 6.01.02.C.)
CECResponse.
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
1;\ DATAf2oD410413012D07_Rezone\RAI #1104130_RAI Response Letter20071015.doc
Le*r to Mr. Mlle Brown, AICP
RE: AL2007- ,1R- 12044,hm akeLLC
October 22, 2007
Pepe 10 of 10
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ADDRESSING
Peggy Jerrel, Addressing Supervisor - Informational
Additional comments:
Before submitting the SDP for the project, please provide an approved name.
CECResponse:
We do not have specific development details at this time because this is a standard
rezone. We will submit a proposed project name prior to, or at the SDP pkase.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 63 of 101
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PUBLIC UTILITY
Zamira Deltoro, Project Manager - Informational
Additional comments:
No objection - The project does not impact Collier County Water and Sewer District. This project
is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer service area. A letter from the franchised utility
system was submitted with this application, stating the available capacity for this development.
CEC Rmonse:
N/A
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PATHWAYS — TRANSPORTATION
David Buccheit, Project Manager - Informational
Additional comments:
Sidewalk plans will be reviewed at SDP or PPL. Pre pre -app notes, please provide a sidewalk
along SR 846 to the casino.
CEC Response:
A detailed site plan will be provided at time of SDP.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Joe Thompson, Planner - ComtrTete
Additional comments:
Please see attachment
CECResnonse:
We have reviewed the attached comprehensive planning memo and there are no
outstanding comments to respond to.
We trust we have addressed all concerns adequately. Should you need any additional information, please
do not hesitate to contact me at (239) 643 -2324 ext. 134 or randrea( cecifl.00m.
Sincerely,
COASTAL NGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Robert Andrea
Planning Consultant
1:\DATA\2004\0413M2007 Remne\RAI #1 \04130 RAI Response Lette20071015.do
%2m
01
Item #9[ � \ Q' �
D
S pe r
-
�
g �
lip
� d
d § /
| �
�
\
�
s $
� .
� ■
� �
� ƒ
■
■ �
$ %
� |
� ■
till
/ �
�
�
%
# �
� �
;
t
* #
$
_WOE
( �
ƒ {
�
$ /
/ \
� �
{ $
�
�
�
_= j_
� �
, *
awl
�'
9WIF Ur 23, 2008
Page 65 of 101
BrownW ille
From: Sandra Palm [palmsa @colller.k12.fi.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:44 AM
To: Brown Willie
Cc: Thomas Eastman; Amy Taylor
Subject: Immokalee LCC (Petition: RZ- 2007 -AR- 12044)
Hi Willie,
We have reviewed the Immokalee LCC that is set to go before the CCPC on Thursday, January 17, 2008. This
development Is currently In the school zones of Pinecrest Elementary (PCP,), Immokalee Middle (IMS)
and Immokalee High (IHS). Based on the number of dwelling units they are proposing (140 units), we estimate
they will generate approximately 28 new elementary school students, 11 new middle school students and 13
new high school students.
Month 2 Membership reports (Sept 18, 2007-Oct. 15, 2007) show the following enrollment at the schools:
PCR - 693 students (CAPACITY: 834)
IMS - 1090 students (CAPACITY: 1284)
IHS - 1441 students (CAPACITY: 1633)
There currently Is capacity at the elementary, middle and high school level. However, effective August 2008, all
sixth graders will be attending the elementary schools and the attendance boundaries will change to
accommodate the additional students. These changes may impact the available capacity at the schools. We
will be monitoring the number of students generated by this development along with the overall enrollment of
these schools to ensure future capacity for this development.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this development. Should you have any questions,
please contact me at the number listed below.
Sandra M. Palm
Facilities Planning Specialist
(239) 377 -0250
Pursuant to School Board policy and administrative procedures, this e-mail system is the property of the School District of Collier County and to be
used for offidal business only. In addition, all users are cautioned that messages sent through this system are subject to the Public Re rds taw of
the State of Florida and also to review by the school system. There should be no expectation of privacy.
i i9i�nnR
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 66 of 101
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 67 of 101
ORDINANCE NO. 08-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41, THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING
ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL
PROPERTY FROM AN ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO
A RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY -16 (RMF -16) ZONING
DISTRICT FOR A MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 15
UNITS PER ACRE OR 140 DWELLING UNITS ON A 9.33 -
ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
THE INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846)
AND SCHOOL ROAD IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH,
RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STIPULATIONS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Shaun Mularkey of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing
Immokalee, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, petitioned the Board of County
Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the real property as more particularly described in Exhibit
"A," located in Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, is
changed from an Estates (E) Zoning District to a Residential Multiple Family -16 (RMF -16)
Revised 7 -10 -08 Page I of 2
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 68 of 101
Zoning District for a multi - family residential development with a maximum density of 15 units
per acre or 140 dwelling units on this 9.33 -acre site, and the appropriate zoning atlas map or
maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, the Collier County Land Development Code,
is /are hereby amended accordingly. The herein described real property is the same for which the
rezone is hereby approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit `B" and the site plan
provided in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
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 2008.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Nt
Marjorie Student - Stirling
Assistant County Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A — Legal Description
Exhibit B — Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C — Concept Plan
07- CPS- 00645l12NMSS 6 -23 -08
M
rOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN
Revised 7 -10 -08 Page 2 of 2
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 69 of 101
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The S %i of the NE '/4 of the SE %4 of the NE '/4 of Section 9, Township 47 South, Range
29 East, Collier County, Florida, less the right -of -way for County Road 846; and the N %z
of the NE %4 of the SE '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East,
Collier County, Florida, less the right -of -way for County Road 846.
Exhibit A
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Page 70 of 101
Immokalee LLC
RZ-2007 -AR -12044
The site plan prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated August 21, 2008, is
conceptual in nature. The final design must be in compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and county laws and regulations.
2. Development of this site is limited to a density maximum of fifteen units per acre.
3. As part of the first site development plan/plat submittal, the developer shall provide:
a) A Preserve Management Plan that includes a replanting plan for the area of invasive
exotic vegetation in the preserve area; and
b) A Listed Species update that includes panther and bear telemetry points; and
c) Listed Species Management Plans that includes the Florida black bear and Big
Cypress fox squirrel; and
d) Written evidence of the mitigation for Florida panther impacts approval from the US
Fish and Wildlife Service.
4. The developer shall locate the preserve generally along the southern boundary of the property
to protect the cypress swamp, subject to staff approval as part of the site development
plan/plat approval process.
5. The developer shall relocate protected plant species to the preserve area prior to any other
construction.
6. Building heights shall be limited to a zoned height of 50 feet not to exceed 3 habitable
stories.
The development shall be limited to one full access driveway that shall be located at least 440
feet west of the School Road/CR 846 intersection.
8. The developer shall provide an emergency exit to School Road as a second access (emergency
exit use only). This exit is to be located at the end of the parking area at the project's
northeastern corner.
9. The developer shall reserve a maximum of 20 feet of land for potential right -of -way along the
project's CR 846 perimeter property boundary. Said land shall be labeled as reservation for
potential future right -of -way and no structures except that stormwater improvements limited
to swales, mitered end sections, and culverts, shall be constructed in the reservation. Upon
written request of Collier County Transportation Division or its successor, the owner shall
convey said land or a portion thereof as determined appropriate by Collier County, to Collier
County in fee simple title with payment by Collier County.
8/21/08 (CCPC changes) Exhibit B
Page 1 of 2
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL Page 71 of 101
Imnwkalee LLC
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
10. Collier County will not be required to construct a noise wall for the existing CR 846 or any
future expansion of CR 846.
11. The developer shall provide a 25 foot wide Type D landscape buffer along the project's CR
846 property boundary.
12. The developer shall provide sidewalks (built to county standards) along the property's entire
frontage on the south side of School Road.
8/21/08 (CCPC changes) Exhibit B
Page 2 of 2
23, 2008
101
�,b \\ \�� 11111 Will I
\��o\\o
`� \ dNl�lli!!!!111�
• •
m0m
MaN
Jim 3
RMNE
No
AGENDA Itt��m # 17D
,eR4r?Ar 23,
Page 73 of 101
Coder County
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 7, 2008
RE: RZ- 2007 -AR- 12044; IMMOKALEE LLC
OWNER/AGENT:
Agent: Shaun Mularkey, AICP Owner: Immokalee LLC
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. 250 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 606
3106 South horseshoe Drive Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Naples, FL 34104
REOUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner wishes to rezone 9.33 acres from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential
Multi- Family (RMF -16) Zoning District.
PROJECT STATUS:
On January 17, 2008, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) voted (8 to 0) to continue
this petition directing that it be presented to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) for review to
determine if the project would negatively impact the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Flowway depicted on
the Future Land Use Map or Immokalee Area Master Plan. The petition was therefore heard by the
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) on May 7, 2008. As part of the preparation for the EAC
hearing, the petitioner prepared a conceptual site plan. That site plan was reviewed by Transportation
Planning staff as well as Zoning and Environmental staff, resulting in the formulation of several new
conditions. Those conditions are discussed below along with the recommendations of the
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC).
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
On May 7, 2008, this petition was presented to the EAC. The EAC, by a unanimous vote of 8 to 0
found that the subject property is not within the Camp Keais/Lake Trafford Flowway, and further, the
EAC determined that the preserve selection as shown on the proposed concept plan is consistent with
Supplemental Staff Report 7- 23- 08.doc Page 1 of 7
IMMOKALEE LLC REZONE
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 74 of 101
the ranking and location requirements in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The 15 percent
preservation requirement is based on the entire 9.33± -acre site, thus 1.4 acres of preserve area is
shown on the site plan.
The EAC recommended the following items shall be required as part of the Site Development Plan
(SDP) approval process:
1. A Preserve Management Plan shall be provided including a replanting plan for the
area of invasive exotic vegetation in the preserve area;
2. A listed species update shall be required prior to the approval of the SDP including
panther and bear telemetry points;
3. Listed species management plans shall be required, including for the Florida black
bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel; and
4. Mitigation for Florida panther impacts shall be approved by USFWS - US Fish and
Wildlife Service
SUPPLEMENTAL ZONING ANALYSIS:
During the January 17, 2008 meeting, the CCPC raised the following primary concerns: (Staffs
assessment and response follow each question)
1. Is the subject property within the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Flm ay? This question was
answered above in the EAC recommendation. The subject property is not the within
"Wetlands Connected to Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System" flowway boundary.
Does the Conservation and Coastal Manafement Element Policy 6.2.5 apply to the subiect
Property? The Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.2.5 applies
to land located within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system. The subject property is
not located within that system. Therefore Policy 6.2.5 does not apply to the subject property
based upon its designation within that system. However, the property is designated "Urban,"
and is located near the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand system. It was not clear at the
CCPC whether the standards of CCME Policy 6.2.5 might be applicable based upon proximity
if not actual location within the system. Policy 6.2.4 (4) addresses land that are connected to
that system and requires similar review for those tracts as for lands actually located within the
system itself. Policy 6.2.4(4) is quoted (in part) below:
Within the Immokalee Urban Designated Area, there may exist high quality wetland
systems connected to the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system. ... the wetland
protection standards set forth in Policy 62.5 shall apply in the area. This area is
generally identified as the areas designated as "Wetlands Connected To Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System" on the Immokalee Future Land Use Map ...
[underlining added for emphasis].
As shown on the attached excerpt from the Immokalee Future Land Use Map, the subject site
is not designated as "connected" land.
1MMOKALEr. LLC REZONE RL- 2007AR -12044 Paqu 2 of 7
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 75 of 101
However, the applicant has identified 3.14 acres of wetlands of which 1.15 acres would be
mitigated. Environmental Services Department has determined that this area is not considered
to be high quality wetlands and further, the subject property is not connected to the Camp
Keais system. Therefore CCME Policy 6.2.5 does not apply to the subject site.
3. Does the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District density reduction policy apply to the project? The
density reduction policy does not apply because the subject site is not located within the Rural
Fringe Mixed -Use District. It is within the Neighborhood Subdistrict as shown on the
Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP).
4. Is a PUD more feasible than a standard rezone? According to Land Development Code
(LDC) Section 4.07.02 A.1:
The minimum area required for a PUD shall be ten (1 D) contiguous acres except as
otherwise provided for within a specific zoning or overlay district, or when located
within an activity center or within the urban coastal fringe areas as designated on the
future land use map of the GMP, or when located within a neighborhood center as
designated on the golden gate area master plan future land use map or Immokalee area
master plan future land use map of the GMP, or when implementing the residential
mixed use neighborhood subdistrict or the commercial mixed use subdistrict in the
future land use element of the GMP, where no minimum acreage requirements must be
met.
The subject tract is not located within a specific zoning or overlay district, a GMP activity
center or the FLUM urban coastal fringe areas, a GMP neighborhood center shown on the
Golden Gate or the Immokalee Area master plans. The proposed rezoning will not be
liviiv OKALEE LLC REZONE RZ- 2007AR -120044 Page 3 of 7
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 76 of 101
implementing any residential mixed use neighborhood Subdistrict or a commercial mixed use
district of the FLUM where no minimum acreage requirements must be met. Therefore the
subject tract's 9.33f acres, does not qualify for submittal as a PUD under this section of the
LDC.
Pursuant to the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) this site qualifies as Residential Infill
that would allow the petitioner to seek an additional three units per acre, however it is
important to note that the designation of Residential Infill of the IAMP is not the same as the
PUD two -acre minimum infill allowances for PUD rezones afforded in LDC Section
4.07.02.A.2 quoted (in part) below:
For purposes of the planned unit development district only, the term "infill parcels"
shall refer to property implementing any of the infill subdistricts identified in the future
land use element or golden gate area master plan element of the GMP, or property
sharing at least two common boundaries with parcels that are developed.
As previously noted, the subject property will not implement any of the infill subdistricts
identified in any portion of the GMP, and the site does not share at least two common boundaries
with developed parcels, therefore the subject site cannot qualify for PUD rezoning.
5. Is the 75 feet maximum height criteria allowed by the RMF -16 Zoning District excessive?
The developer's agent has offered to accept a 50 -foot maximum (zoned) building height for
this project.
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS:
The petitioner was required to provide a site plan for EAC review. Zoning staff shared the site
plan with Transportation Planning staff to garner their input. The petitioner's agent and the
Transportation Planning staff have agreed upon two conditions addressing ingress and egress to
the site. Those conditions are as follows:
1. The development shall be limited to one full (right Wright out) access driveway that
shall be located at least 440 feet west of the School Road /CR 846 intersection; and
2. The development shall be limited to one right -out driveway that shall be located at
least 125 feet west of the School Road /CR 846 intersection.
Transportation Planning is also requesting that two other conditions be included as part of any
approval for this project, as shown below:
The developer shall reserve a maximum of 20 feet of land for potential right -of -way
along the project's CR 846 perimeter property boundary. Said land shall be labeled as
reservation for potential future right -of -way. Upon written request of Collier County
Transportation Division or its successor, the owner shall surrender said land or a
portion thereof as determined appropriate by Collier County, to Collier County in fee
1VW10 ALES. LLC REZONE RZ-2007/ AR -120 4 Page 4 of ,
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 77 of 101
simple title with payment by Collier County based upon 2008, Estates zoning district
prices; and
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer or his successors and
assigns in title shall construct a noise wall and/or berm as noise mitigation for CR 846
and any expansion thereof. This noise wall and /or berm shall be constructed outside of
the 20 foot right -of -way reservation.
Transportation Planning is seeking the conditions to further the objectives, goals and policies of
the Transportation Element of the GMP, wherein the Implementation Strategy provides for "the
protection and acquisition of future rights -of -way (ROW)" [page 14 of the GMP Transportation
Element]. Objective #3 of that Element states:
The County shall provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future
rights -of -way based upon . . . the Collier County Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MPO's) adopted Long Range Transportation Plan.
Exhibit TR -2, the "Collier County 2025 Long Range Needs Plan" of the GMP Transportation
Element shows CR 846 as a four -lane roadway. The roadway is currently only a two -lane
roadway, thus additional right -of -way will be needed to implement the Long Range Needs Plan.
Transportation Element Policy 3.4 states:
Collier County shall acquire rights -of -way for transportation improvements in fee
simple, unless otherwise determined appropriate by the Board of County
Commissioners based upon a recommendation from the Transportation Administrator.
The first condition contains the fee simple requirement along with a stipulation that the money to
be paid by the County for the right -of -way will be paid to the owner in "2008 dollars," consistent
with Board direction that rezoning actions that could intensify the use of a parcel be required to
offset their impacts whether those impacts be planned within the near future or within the time
frame identified in any long range planning tool. The second condition addresses Transportation
staff's concern that the project's buildings locations near the roadway could raise issues later
regarding noise attenuation both now and later should the roadway be expanded.
As of the date this supplemental staff report was prepared, the petitioner was not in agreement
with these conditions and planned to contest it at the CCPC hearing.
Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County
Planning Commission forward Petition RZ- 2007 -AR -12044 to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions:
Development of this site shall be limited to what is shown on the conceptual site plan,
identified as "Concept Plan," prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated
February 19, 2008. The site plan noted is conceptual in nature for rezoning approval. The final
iiAMOKALEE LL% REZONE RZ- 2007AR -12044 Page 5 of 7
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 78 of 101
design must be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and
regulations;
2. Development of this site is limited to a density maximum of 15 units per acre;
3. As part of the first site development plan/plat submittal, the developer shall provide:
a) A Preserve Management Plan that includes a replanting plan for the area of invasive
exotic vegetation in the preserve area; and
b) A Listed Species update that includes panther and bear telemetry points; and
C) Listed Species Management Plans that includes the Florida black bear and Big Cypress
fox squirrel; and
d) Written evidence of the mitigation for Florida panther impacts approval from the US
Fish and Wildlife Service;
4. The developer shall locate the preserve generally along the southern boundary of the property
to protect the cypress swamp, subject to staff approval as part of the site development
plan/plat approval process;
5. The developer shall relocate protected plant species to the preserve area prior to any other
construction;
6. Building heights shall not exceed a zoned height of 50 feet;
7. The development shall be limited to one full (right in /right out) access driveway that shall be
located at least 440 feet west of the School Road/CR 846 intersection;
8. The development shall be limited to one right -out driveway that shall be located at least 125
feet west of the School Road/CR 846 intersection; and
9. The developer shall reserve a maximum of 20 feet of land for potential right -of -way along the
project's CR 846 perimeter property boundary. Said land shall be labeled as reservation for
potential future right -of -way. Upon written request of Collier County Transportation Division
or its successor, the owner shall surrender said land or a portion thereof as determined
appropriate by Collier County, to Collier County in fee simple title with payment by Collier
County based upon 2008, Estates zoning district prices.
10. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer or his successors and assigns in
title shall construct a six -foot high noise wall and/or berm as noise mitigation for CR 846 and
any expansion thereof. This noise wall and /or berm shall be constructed outside of the 20 foot
right -of -way reservation. The wall /and or berm requirement is in addition to the LDC
landscaping requirements.
IIV MOKALEE LLC REZONE RZ-2007AR- 12044 Page 6 of 7
PREPARED BY:
46v- &&*, 7-15--68
KAY SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
lz,�, A�U(o
HEIDI ASHTON -CICKO DATE
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
a 7 - /-7- 0 g
RAYMOND V. ELLOW , ZONING MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
USAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
K. SCHMITT
71s� og'
DATE
Item # 17D
September 23,
Page 79 of 101
DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR
scheduled for the September 23, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
C�� k�
MARK P. STkAIN, CHAIRMAN
Attachment:
Exhibit A — Conceptual Site Plan
11 HVUMOKALEE LLC REZONE RZ- 2007AR -12044 Page 7 of 7
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 80 of 101
Immokalee LLC Rezone
EAC Summary
During the January 17, 2008 Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) meeting, the
CCPC recommended to forward petition RZ- 2007 -AR -12044 to the Environmental
Advisory Council (EAC) for review. In accordance with LDC Section 8.06.03.0
(Powers and Duties of the EAC), the EAC shall review any petition which requires
approval of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) or the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) where staff receives a request from the Chairman of the EAC,
CCPC or the BCC for that petition to be reviewed by the EAC.
The Immokalee LLC rezone petition is a request to rezone the subject site from the
Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential Multi- family (RMF -16) Zoning District for
a multi - family residential development with a maximum density of 15 units per acre, or
140 dwelling units on a 9.33 acre site. The subject property is presently vacant and
undeveloped, and has not been previously disturbed. Only the 6.42 acre uplands portion
of the site would be developed, and the remaining 2.91 acres of wetland area (marsh,
swamp, and drainage canals) would be preserved. The development standards for the
RMF -16 Zoning District are as follows:
Maximum Zoned Building Heights: 75 feet
Maximum Front Yard Setback: 1/2 SBH with a minimum of 30 feet.
In addition, a minimum of 140 parking spaces, or one space per unit plus visitor parking,
would be required for the proposed multi - family dwelling units.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: The subject property is presently vacant and
undeveloped, and is within the Estates (F.) Zoning District. North of the property is Farm
Worker's Village, a multi - family development, in the Village Residential Zoning District.
South of the property is vacant, undeveloped land in the Estates (E) Zoning District. East
of the property is vacant land, owned by Seminole Casino, in the Agricultural - Mobile
Home Overlay (A -MHO) Zoning District, and west of the property is Bethune Education
Center in the Estates (E) Zoning District.
Zoning Synopsis: As described in LDC Section 2.03.01(F), the purpose and intent of the
residential multiple- family -16 district "RMF -16" is to provide lands for medium to high
density multiple - family residences, generally surrounded by open space, located in close
proximity to public and commercial services, with direct or convenient access to arterial
and collector roads on the county major road network. This district corresponds to and
implements the urban mixed use land use designation on the future land use map of the
Collier County GMP. The maximum density shall not exceed 12 dwelling units per acre
in accordance with the Immokalee Area Master Plan, except as permitted by policies
contained in the future land use element pertaining to Residential In -fill Density Bonus
criteria. See GMP impact for details.
Item # 17D
September 23,
Page 81 of 101
Irmokalee LLC Rezone EAC Summary
May 7, 2008
Page 2
Growth Management Plan Consistency: The subject 9.33 acre property, as identified
on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP), is
within the land use designation known as Neighborhood Center (NC) Subdistrict
(denoted as NC on the TAMP FLUM). The purpose of this land use classification is to
provide for centers of activity that serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. The
centers should contain a blended mix of neighborhood oriented uses such as day care
centers, parks, schools and governmental activities.
In accordance with the NC designation, Section 4. d., "non residential uses shall be at
least 20 percent of the size of the NC." The subject NC area is approximately 110 acres.
Currently, the NC includes two non - residential uses: the Career and Service Center of
Collier County (3.7 awes) and Bethune Education Center (10.4 acres). The existing non-
residential uses combined equate to 12.8 percent of the NC's size. As a result of the
existing non - residential uses, the aforementioned NC provision still requires at least eight
acres be available for future non - residential use.
The majority of the NC is zoned Estates (E), but there is a 4.5 acre parcel zoned Village
Residential (VR) in the northeast quadrant abutting County Road 846. Additionally, there
is a 2.8 acre parcel currently being utilized for residential purposes at the corner of
Bethune Road and County Road 846. In combination, the two existing properties account
for 7.3 acres and approximately 6.6 percent of the total NC. When the existing residential
properties and existing non residential uses are added together, they represent 19.4
percent of the NC. As a result, the 80.6 percent remaining area of the NC (88.7 acres)
demonstrates adequate development potential for achieving the requisite amount of non-
residential usage even when the proposed rezone is factored into the future development
scenario.
Pursuant to the NC designation, Section 4. e., "residential development within the
designated Neighborhood Centers shall permit a maximum density of twelve (12) units
per gross acre. Residential dwelling units shall be limited to multi - family structures and
less intensive units such as single- family and duplexes provided they are compatible with
the district."
The petitioner is proposing an exclusively multi - family -based residential development
which would be consistent with residential uses intended for the NC. From the density
perspective, the petitioner is requesting 15 units per acre based upon Residential In -fill
Bonus eligibility.
Section 2, Density Bonuses, d. Residential In -fill, of the LAMP, lists the following
additional criteria, "To encourage residential in -fill, three (3) residential dwelling units
per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met..."
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 82 of 101
Immokalee LLC Rezone EAC Summary
May 7, 2005
Page 3
Residential In -fill eligibility criteria is as follows:
• "The project is 10 acres or less in size" — subject parcel is 9.33
acres
• "At the time of development, the project will be served by
central public water and sewer" — subject parcel is within the
Immokalee Water and Sewer District, which will provide
water and sewer service
• "The project is compatible with surrounding land uses" — see
page 7 for Zoning Analysis
• "The property in question has no common site development
plan with adjacent property" — there is no indication of any
common site development plans with contiguous properties
property appraiser records.
• "There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels" —
there is no common ownership among adjacent properties
• "The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of
the Residential In -fill Density Bonus and was created prior to
the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan
on January 10, 1989" — according to the Collier County
Property Appraiser's Office, the respective parcel was created
in its current legal descriptive form on or about 1965.
Based upon the above analysis, the project is eligible for a maximum density of 15
dwelling units per acre (du /a).
Conclusion: Staff deems the subject RMF -16 rezone request consistent with the TAMP
based on the following findings.
• The site qualifies as a residential infill project which is eligible
for three additional dwelling units per acre.
• The IAMP allows 12 units per acre.
Item # 17D
September 23,
Page 83 of 101
Immokalee LLC Rezone EAC Summary
May 7, 2008
Page 4
Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following:
A density cap of 15 du /a shall be placed on the RMF -16
rezone request at the time of approval, and this density cap
shall be included in the rezone ordinance as RMF -16 (15)
Environmental Services Recommendation: The preserve selection as proposed on the
project master plan is consistent with the ranking and location requirements in the
Growth Management Plan.
The following items shall be required as part of the next development order:
1. A Preserve Management Plan shall be provided including a
replanting plan for the area of invasive exotic vegetation in the
preserve area.
2. A listed species update shall be required prior to the next
development order including panther and bear telemetry points.
3. Listed species management plans shall be required, including
Florida black bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel.
4. Mitigation for Florida panther impacts shall be approved by
USFWS - US Fish and Wildlife Service
Preservation requirements are based on the entire site of t 9 acres. 15% of the total site
is 1.4 acres and is shown on the site plan.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Excerpt from the Minutes Page 84 of 101
of the
Environmental Advisory Council
May 79 2008 Meeting
B. Rezone No. RZ- 2007 -AR -12044 (per CCPC Chair)
Immokalee LLC RZ
Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East
The presenters were sworn in.
Sean Malarkey of Coastal Engineering Consultant, Inc. provided a brief
overview of the project indicating the property is 9.33 acres located on the corner
of County Road 846 and School Road. It did not require previous EAC review
for a re -zone as the parcel is less than 10 acres. It was reviewed by the Planning
Commission and they referred it to the Environmental Advisory Council for
review based on the proximity of wetlands in the Lake Trafford area and Camp
Keais Strand and there was no concept plan for a preserve. He noted the
following:
• The preserve is now shown on the plans
• The zoning change is for residential multi - family use with a maximum
density of 15 units per acre
• 3.14 acres of the site is wetland located with the preserve to be located on
the southern portion of the property, the wetland in the northern portion
will be mitigated
The project proposes 140 residential units in a 3 story building
Tammy Lyday, Sr. Biologist of Earth Balance provided an overview on the
Environmental aspecis of the application noting the following:
• There is no evidence of listed species on site
• There is a couple of listed plant species scattered throughout the site
located in the preserve area
• The wetlands are Army Corp jurisdictional
• The nearest Panther telemetry data observations are 2 miles away
It was noted that the project lies on the northern fringe of one of the only areas
available for east/ west Panther movement between the Okaloacoochee and Camp
Keais Sloughs.
Susan Mason stated that the application was referred to the Environmental
Advisory Council for review as the Planning Commission received the submittal
with no site plan, and there are wetlands of concern in the area and the Planning
Commission wanted to ensure preserve requirements were met, etc.
It has now been determined those wetlands are significantly away from the
property.
Sean Malarkey stated the Petitioner agrees with the recommendations contained
in the Staff Report.
Dr. Hushon moved to accept the Petition (Rezone No. RZ- 2007 -AR- 12044,
Im mokalee LLC RZ) as presented. Second by Mr. Jacobsen. Carried
unanimously 8 -0.
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 85 of 101
CO eY County
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2008
SUBJECT: RZ- 2007 -AR- 12044, IMMOKALEE LLC
OWNER/AGENT:
Agent: Shaun Mularkey, AICP
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.
3106 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Owner: Immokalee LLC
250 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 606
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
REOUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner wishes to rezone 9.33 acres from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential
Multi- Family (RMF -16) Zoning District for a project to be known as Immokalee LLC.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The property is located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR -846) and
School Road, in Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (See
illustration on following page)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Petitioner is requesting RMF -16 zoning for a multi - family residential development with a
maximum density of 15 units per acre, or 140 dwelling units on a 9.33 acre site. The subject property
is presently vacant and undeveloped, and has not been previously disturbed. Only the 6.42 acre
uplands portion of the site would be developed, and the remaining 2.91 acres of wetland area (marsh,
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
Immokalee LLC Rezone
Item # 17D
Septembgr 23, 2008
Page 86 of 101
D-
Q
Z_
Z
O
N
IR
j
U
i�
W
X
sc 'a s
a
�o
ag
Q
i
IR
j
U
i�
i
I > ! l y S
7 11
i
�• -� Ise -,; Cln us�tit'r ;'�'�� 4., .... ,.
1 I
n
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 88 Of 101
Aerial Photo
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The subject 9.33 acre property, as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the ImmOkalee
Area Master Plan UAW), is within the land use designation known as NPi hborhood Center (NC)
Subdistrict (denoted as NC on the LAMP FLUM). The purpose of this land use cTasstfrcah"o i o
provide for centers of activity that serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. The centers
should contain a blended mix of neighborhood oriented uses such as day care centers, parks, schools
and governmental activities.
In accordance with the NC designation, Section 4, d., "non residential uses shall be at least 20 percent
of the size of the NC." The subject NC area is approximately 110 acres. Currently, the NC includes
two non - residential uses: the Career and Service Center of Collier County (3.7 acres) and Bethune
Education Center (10.4 acres). The existing non - residential uses combined equate to 12.8 percent of
the NC's size. As a result of the existing non - residential uses, the aforementioned NC provision still
requires at least eight acres be available for future non - residential use.
RZ2007 -AR -12044
Immokalee LLC Rezone
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 89 of 101
The majority of the NC is zoned Estates (E), but there is a 4.5 acre parcel zoned Village Residential
(VR) in the northeast quadrant abutting County Road 846. Additionally, there is a 2.8 acre parcel
'currently being utilized for residential purposes at the corner of Bethune Road and County Road 846.
In combination, the two existing properties account for 7.3 acres and approximately 6.6 percent of the
total NC. When the existing residential properties and existing non residential uses are added
together, they represent 19.4 percent of the NC. As a result, the 80.6 percent remaining area of the NC
(88.7 acres) demonstrates adequate development potential for achieving the requisite amount of non-
residential usage even when the proposed rezone is factored into the future development scenario.
Pursuant to the NC designation, Section 4. e., "residential development within the designated
Neighborhood Centers shall permit a maximum density of twelve (12) units per gross acre.
Residential dwelling units shall be limited to multi- farnily structures and less intensive units such as
single - family and duplexes provided they are compatible with the district "
The petitioner is proposing an exclusively multi- family -based residential development which would
be consistent with residential uses intended for the NC. From the density perspective, the petitioner is
requesting 15 units per acre based upon Residential In -fill Bonus eligibility.
Section 2, Density Bonuses, d. Residential In -fill, of the IAMP, lists the following additional criteria,
"To encourage residential in -fill, three (3) residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if
the following criteria are met..." I .
Residential In -fill eligibility criteria is as follows:
• "The project is 10 acres or less in size" — subject parcel is 9.33 acres
• "At the time of development, the project will be served by central public
water and sewer" — subject parcel is within the Immokalee Water and
Sewer District, which will provide water and sewer service
• "The project is compatible with surrounding land uses" — see page 7 for
Zoning Analysis
• "The property in question has no common site development plan with
adjacent 'property" — there is no indication of any common site
development plans with contiguous properties property appraiser records.
• "There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels" — there is no
common ownership among adjacent properties
• "The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the
Residential In -fill Density Bonus and was created prior to the adoption of
this provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989" —
according to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, the respective
parcel was created in its current legal descriptive form on or about 1965.
RZ2007 -AR -12044
Immokalee LLC Rezone
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 90 of 101
Based upon the above analysis, the project is eligible for a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per
acre (du/a).
CONCLUSION: Staff deems the subject RMF -16 rezone request consistent with the TAMP based on
the following findings.
The site qualifies as a residential infill project which is eligible for three
additional dwelling units per acre.
The LkMP allows 12 units per acre.
Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following:
A density cap of 15 du/a shall be placed on the RMF -16 rezone request at
the time of approval, and this density cap shall be included in the rezone
ordinance as RMF -16 (15)
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has evaluated this petition, and advises that
it is consistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. The surrounding
roadway network was analyzed based on the 2013 build -out traffic conditions according to
conclusions drawn in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS). All roadways were shown to operate acceptably
after the addition of the proposed re -zone and use of the Immokalee Road Multi- family site.
Intersection analysis and turn lane analysis will be performed as a part of the SDP process.
ANALYSIS:
Transportation: The Transportation Department has reviewed this petition, and advises that
access may be required from School Road. However, the petitioner, during the SDP process, will
negotiate with the Transportation Department to provide access from CR -846. CR -846 is proposed to
be expanded from two to four lanes by the Collier County Metro Planning Organization in the Long
Range 2030 Transportation Plan. The Transportation Department recommends approval subject to
the following conditions:
All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings, and design criteria shall
be in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT
Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD), current edition.
Arterial -level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access
lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the final certificate of
occupancy (CO).
Site related improvements (as opposed to system related improvements)
necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
Immokalee LLC Rezone
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 91 of 101
Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required
improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to
commencement of on -site construction.
Nothing in any development order (DO) shall vest a right of access in
excess of a right - in/right -out condition at any access point. Neither shall
the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress, or a median opening,
nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for
damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or
assignee. Collier County reserves the right to close any median opening
existing at any time which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and
welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but not
limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity.
If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing
County rights -of -way or easement(s), then compensating right -of -way
shall be provided at no cost to Collier County as a consequence of such
improvement(s) upon final approval of the turn lane design during the
review of the first subsequent development order. The typical cross
section may not differ from the existing roadway unless approved, in
writing, by the Transportation Division Administrator, or his designee.
1 If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, traffic signal(s), other traffic
control devices, signs, pavement marking improvements, within a public
right -of -way or easement, or site related improvements (as opposed to
system related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this
project, as determined by Collier County, is determined to be necessary,
the cost of such improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer,
his successors or assigns. The improvements shall be paid for or installed,
at the County's discretion, prior to the issuance of corresponding CO."
Environmental: Environmental Review staff has reviewed this petition, and recommends
approval. The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) did not review this petition, and an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was not required as the site is less than 10 acres. However, a
wetland permit and wading bird management plan shall be required prior to development order
approval.
Utilities: Public utilities staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection. The project does
not impact the Collier County Water and Sewer District. It is located within the Immokalee Water
and Sewer service area. A letter from the franchised utility system was submitted with this
application, stating that there was available capacity for this development.
Zoning and Land Development Analysis: Zoning staff has reviewed this petition and concurs with
the findings of Comprehensive Planning. The proposed rezone and use is found to be consistent with
the IAMP of the GMT. In addition, the proposed project will meet the RMF -16 Zoning District
RZ•2007 -AR -12044 7
Immokalee LLC Rezone
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008.
Page 92 of 101
criteria. The purpose and intent of the RMF -16 Zoning District is to provide lands for medium to
high density multiple- family residences, generally surrounded by open space, which must be located
close in proximity to public and commercial services, with direct or convenient access to arterial
and collector roads on a county major road network. This project meets that criteria.
The immediate surrounding area is mostly undeveloped. if the rezoning is approved, pursuant to the
requirements of the Land Development Code (LDC), the petitioner would be required to provide a
15 -foot wide, Type -B Buffer with a six foot wall, fence, hedge, berm or combination thereof adjacent
to areas zoned Estates and a 10 foot wide, Type A Buffer adjacent to areas zoned Village Residential.
In addition, much of the site will remain undeveloped and will interconnect to adjacent areas
providing interconnectivity of preserves for protection of habitat and wildlife species. Density in the
IAMP encourages medium to high residential land uses with densities of 12 units per acre. The
project also qualifies for an additional three units per acre under the Residential In -fill Bonus
provisions. Under the current Estates Zoning District, the subject site could be developed with 2.25
dwelling units per acre.
The differences between the Estates (E) and the RMF -16 Zoning District development criteria are as
follows:
A = 50% of building height, but not less than 15 feet
B = 50% of building height, but not less than 30 feet
All numbers shown are the required minimum amounts
Maximum building coverage not applicable to either district
The site would be developed on uplands and designed in a way to protect environmentally sensitive
wetlands, and is found to be consistent with the policies of the long range ImmoMee Area Master
Plan, and RMF -16 Zoning District criteria. In staff s opinion, this development proposal is an
optimal use of the site.
In summary, the project is within a Neighborhood Center Subdistrict designation which encourages
multi- family developments. It is in close proximity to public and commercial services, and has direct
or convenient access to collector and arterial roads on the County major road network which is a
requirement of the RMF -16 Zoning District.
Based upon the above analysis, staff is of the opinion that the proposed change to the RM9-16 Zoning
District is not anticipated to have an adverse effect upon the surrounding area.
RZ-2007 -AR -12044
Immokalm LLC Rezone
/
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 93 of 101
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (N[M):
Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator:
On October 9, 2007 at 5:30 pm the petitioner held a NIM at the Bethune Education Center located at
614 South 5a' Street, Immokalee. Three persons from the community attended: Immokalee Chamber
of Commerce Executive Director, Mr. Dick Rice and residents, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Thomas. The
developer's agent, Shaun Mularkey with Coastal Engineering was present, as well as the developer
and property owner Mr. Barry Goldmeier. Linda Bedtelyon (Community Planning Coordinator) and
Willie Brown (Principal Planner) were present representing Collier County staff. The petitioner
summarized the zoning request and proposed use of the property. There was no opposition.
Resident, Mr. Fred Thomas, said "Folks in Immokalee will support development, but nothing that is
subsidized ". Mr. Thomas also invited the applicant to the Tmmokalee Chamber of Commerce
meeting(s). The NIM concluded at approximately 6:20 PM.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) forward a recommendation of approval of Petition RZ- 2006 -AR -12044 to the
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) subject to the following conditions:
- I . Density shall be limited to 15 dwelling units per acre.
1
2. Arterial -level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access
lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the final certificate of
occupancy (CO).
3. Site related improvements (as opposed to system related improvements)
necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier
County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All improvements
necessary to provide safe ingress and egress for construction - related traffic
shall be in place and operational prior to commencement of on -site
construction.
4. Nothing in any development order (DO) shall vest a right of access in excess of
• right - in/right -out condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of
• point of ingress, a point of egress, or a median opening, nor the lack thereof,
be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by
the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. Collier County reserves the
right to close any median opening existing at any time which is found to be
adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such
modifications shall be based on, but not limited to, safety, operational
circulation, and roadway capacity.
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044 9
Immokalee LLC Rezone
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 94 of 1'01 .
If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County
rights -of -way or easement(s), then compensating right -of -way shall be
provided at no cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement(s)
upon final approval of the turn lane design during the review of the first
subsequent development order. The typical cross section may not differ from
the existing roadway unless approved, in writing, by the Transportation
Division Administrator, or his designee.
6. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, traffic signal(s), other traffic control
devices, signs, pavement marking improvements within a public right -of -way
or easement, or site related improvements (as opposed to system related
improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as
determined by Collier County, are determined to be necessary, the cost of such
improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or
assigns. The improvements shall be paid for or installed, at the County's
discretion, prior to the issuance of the corresponding CO.
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044 10
ImmoWee LLC Rezone
\ PREPARED BY:
-- J
'v.\ a00 1Z,
WLLIE BROWN, AICP, l3 e I
DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
� 2 zo(oi
JEFFREY DATE
CHIEF ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
IZ•27•07
RV BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SAN MURRAY ISTENES , AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
70 E H K. SC ] TT ADMINISTRATOR DA
C TY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the February 26, 2007 Board of County Commissioners Meeting,
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
Exhibit: "A' Rezone Findings
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044 11
Immokalee LLC Rezone
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 95 of 101
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 9'6 of 101 -
REZONE FINDINGS
PETITION RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
I MMOKALEE LLC REZONE
Section 10.03.05 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 Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation
to the following, where applicable:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management
Plan.
Pro: The subject property is within Immokalee and guided by the Immokalee Area
Master Plan. The subject property is designated Neighborhood Center (NC) Subdistrict.
The purpose of this land use classification is to provide for centers of activity that serve
the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. The centers should contain a blended mix of
neighborhood oriented uses such as day care centers, parks, schools and governmental
activities as well as residential uses. The multi - family residential development is
consistent with the intended form of residential development as stated in the NC
Subdistrict. A density cap of 15 dwelling units per acre would be required as the project
qualifies as a residential infill project, which permits three additional units per acre.
Con: None
Findings: Based on staff s review, the proposed development would be compatible with
existing surrounding uses. The project would be in compliance with the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as stated above.
2. The eusting land use pattern;
Pro: The predominant land use in the area is vacant and undeveloped land with
undeveloped land to the south and east of the property, although there is an educational
center west and multi- family village to the north. The proposed use would be
compatible with the existing land use pattern by furthering the goals of the NC
Subdistrict in enhancing the area as a blended mix of neighborhood uses.
Con: None
Findings: By approving this use, in accordance with the Immokalee Area Master Plan,
this proposal will further the goals and objectives of that Plan, and honor the intentions of
the residents in the area. Thus, Staff agrees that the proposed use is complimentary and
compatible with surrounding uses.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts;
RZ- 2006 -AR- 10422, NAPLES MAZDA REZONING PAGE 1 or 6 REZONE FINDINGS
J
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 97 of 101
Pro: The subject rezone will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and
nearby districts as it is consistent with the long range plan for the area. It is also similar
to the VR zoning to the north that also permits multi - family residential.
Con: None
Findings: The subject parcel is of sufficient size for the proposed use and roadway
improvements, and does not over intensify the lot within its surroundings if approved as
RMF- 16(15), which requires a density cap of 15 dwelling units per acre per the GMP.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Pro: See item 1.
Con: The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent
property, and there is no indication of any common site development plans with
contiguous properties. There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels, and
there is no common ownership among adjacent properties.
Findings: The existing boundaries are not illogically drawn.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
Pro: The proposal would be consistent with the IAMP making the proposed change
acceptable for passage. Due to the proposed widening of Immokalee from a two to four
lane roadway, this area will no longer be suitable for estate uses as currently zoned.
Con: The subject site could be developed with single - family dwelling units under the
current Estates zoning District.
Findings: The proposed rezoning petition is compatible with adjacent land uses and
proposed development on the existing lot with improvements is better suited than
residential single family uses.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Pro: The zoning change will not negatively impact existing living conditions considering
proposed improvements. The proposed use would add affordable newer housing in the
area, and possibly provide affordable worker housing particularly for Ave Maria
employees. The addition of new residents would certainly have a positive economic
impact on the area.
Con: None
RZ- 2006 -AR- 10422, NAPLES MAZDA REZONING PAGE 2 OF 6 REZONE FINDINGS
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008,
Page 98 of 101
Findings: The proposed petition is compatible with adjacent land uses.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion
or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses because
of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
Pro: The development proposal request is for 140 dwelling units on 9.33 acres. The site
fronts Immokalee Road, which is a major arterial, and with proposed improvements will
not be exceeded in capacity.
Con: The traffic generated by the proposed 140 unit project exceeds the amount of traffic
that could be generated under the current Estates Zoning District.
Findings: No public safety concerns are anticipated resulting from this rezoning of land
if approved subject to proposed conditions of approval. This area is very sparsely
developed The abutting roadway is not near meeting or exceeding capacity.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Pro: The zoning action would not create a drainage problem. South Florida Water
Management District permits and would be required to develop the site. Any future
development within the subject area would be required to meet District storm water
drainage regulations.
Con: None
Fin ' s: Every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land for
some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub - surface drainage
generated by developmental activities. The subject property would be required to meet
the storm water drainage regulations of the South Florida Water Management District.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
Pro /Con: Evaluation not applicable
Fin ' s: All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that are
unique to the zoning district in which it is located. These development standards and
others apply generally and equally to all zoning districts (open space requirement,
corridor management provisions, etc.) were designed to ensure that light penetration and
circulation of air does not adversely affect adjacent areas. Considering also this area is
surrounded mostly by vacant undeveloped land, there should not be an issue with reduced
light or air.
RZ- 2006 -AR- 10422, NAPLES MAZDA REZONING PAGE 3 OF 6 REZONE FINDINGS
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 99 of 101
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area;
Pro: Urban intensification typically increases the value of adjacent or underutilized land.
Con_ Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however,
zoning by itself may or may not affect values since value determination by law is driven
by market value. The mere fact that a property is given a new zoning designation or
amendment may or may not affect value. However, staff is of the opinion that this
petition could have a positive affect on the property values based on the petitions
compatibility to the Land Development. Code and the adjoining property as identified
previously.
Findings: This is a subjective deters inAtion based upon anticipated results which maybe
internal or external to the subject property, and which can affect property values.
Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by
itself may or may not affect values since value determination by law is driven by market
value. The mere fact that a property is given a new zoning designation may or may not
affect value.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Pro /Con: Evaluation not applicable
Findings: The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land
Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site
development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable
assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or
development of adjacent property.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
Pro: Granting this rezone will not convey special privileges upon this individual land
owner since the petition is consistent with the IAMP.
Con: None.
Findings: The proposed rezone will not constitute a grant of special privilege.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning;
RZ- 2006 -AR- 10422, NAPLES NAZDA REZONING PAGE 4 OF 6 REZONE FINDINGS
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 100 of 101 '
Pro: The future expansion of Immokalee Road and recent amendment of the lmmokalee
Master Plan creating for the intensification of uses along this corridor does not lend itself
to the existing Estate zoning for the area.
Con: None
Findings: Staff believes that the proposed amendment would aid in creating greater
compatibility within the area.
14. whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County;
Pro: The proposed project would be designed in a maimer that is compatible with
surrounding properties in size and scale because the development proposal would be
required to meet the intent of the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict designation.
Con: None
Findings: Staff agrees that the proposed multi - family use will meet the intent of the
Neighborhood Center District, including the intended mix of uses and densities. The
proposed project would provide array of housing choices in this area of the County where
choices are limited in an area close to local goods and services.
15, whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use?
Pro: The proposed Master Plan amendment proposes this area for high density
residential uses. The proposed zoning change fulfills the current and proposed future
land use designations for this site.
Con: None.
Findings: Staff agrees that the proposed zoning change for the subject parcel allows
multi- family residential uses, and would fulfill what is envisioned in both the current and
proposed plans.
16. The physieal 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.
Pro: The existing wetlands of the subject site would remain protected and unchanged,
and only the remaining upland portions of the site would be cleared for development.
Con: None
Findings: The degree of site work would be minimal.
RZ- 2006 -AR- 10422, NAPLES MAZDA REZONING PAGE 5 OF 6 REZONE FINDINGS
Item # 17D
September 23, 2008
Page 101 of 101
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.
Poo: The property is not in the Collier County Water and Sewer District, it is within the
Imrnokalee Water and Sewer District, and a letter of availability has been
provided.
Con: Evaluation not applicable
Findings: A multi - disciplined team responsible for reviewing jurisdictional elements of
the GMP and the LDC public facilities requirements and has reviewed this land use
petition and found it consistent and in compliance for zoning approval subject to
conditions of approval as listed in the staff report A final determination as to whether
this project meets the full requirements of adequate public facilities specifications will be
determined as part of the site development approval process.
RZ- 2006 -AR- 10422, NAPLES NAZDA REZONING PAGE 6 OF 6 REZONE FINDINGS
2
1/23f &(&
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Immokalee LLC
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
The site plan prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated August 21, 2008, is
conceptual in nature. The final design must be in compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and county laws and regulations.
Development of this site is limited to a density maximum of fifteen units per acre.
As part of the first site development plan/plat submittal, the developer shall provide:
a) A Preserve Management Plan that includes a replanting plan for the area of invasive
exotic vegetation in the preserve area; and
b) A Listed Species update that includes panther and bear telemetry points; and
c) Listed Species Management Plans that includes the Florida black bear and Big
Cypress fox squirrel; and
d) Written evidence of the mitigation for Florida panther impacts approval from the US
Fish and Wildlife Service.
4. The developer shall locate the preserve generally along the southern boundary of the property
to protect the cypress swamp, subject to staff approval as part of the site development
plan/plat approval process.
5. The developer shall relocate protected plant species to the preserve area prior to any other
construction.
6. Building heights shall be limited to a zoned height of 50 feet not to exceed 3 habitable
stories.
7. The development shall be limited to one full access driveway that shall be located at least 440
feet west of the School Road/CR 846 intersection.
8. The developer shall provide an emergency exit to School Road as a second access (emergency
exit use only). This exit is to be located at the end of the parking area at the project's
northeastern corner.
9. The developer shall reserve a maximum of 20 feet of land for potential right -of -way along the
project's CR 846 perimeter property boundary. Said land shall be labeled as reservation for
potential future right -of -way and no structures except that stormwater improvements limited
to swales, mitered end sections, and culverts, shall be constructed in the reservation. Upon
written request of Collier County Transportation Division or its successor, the owner shall
convey said land or a portion thereof as determined appropriate by Collier County, to Collier
County in fee simple title with payment by Collier County.
8/21/08 (CCPC changes) Exhibit B
Page 1 of 2
9/234 $
CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL /7D
Immokalee LLC
RZ- 2007 -AR -12044
10. Collier County will not be required to construct a noise wall for the existing CR 846 or any
future expansion of CR 846.
11. The developer shall provide a 25 foot wide Type D landscape buffer along the project's CR
846 property boundary.
12. The developer shall provide sidewalks (built to county standards) along the property's entire
frontage on the south side of School Road.
13. The developer shall provide parking for this project in the amount of a minimum of 2 spaces
per unit or 280 spaces, whichever is less.
9/22/08 (CCPC changes) Exhibit B
Page 2 of 2