Agenda 07/22/2008 Item # 8AAgenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 1 of 34
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUDA- 2007 -AR- 11734, KRG 951 and 41, LLC, represented by Q. Grady Minor, is
requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to the Artesa Pointe PUD to
remove a 0.88 -acre parcel of land and add it to the proposed Tamiami Crossing
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) abutting its northern boundary. The 0.88 -
acre subject property is located approximately one - quarter of a mile south of the
intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the Tamiami Trail (US 41), in Section 3,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida
COMPANION ITEM: PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10875
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an amendment to the Artesa Pointe
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to revise the legal description and Master Plan boundaries to
reflect that the subject 0.88 -acre parcel of land is being added to the proposed Tamiami Crossing
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD); and to make certain that the project is in
harmony with the applicable County codes and regulations to maintain the community's interests.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant proposes to amend the Artesa Pointe PUD, approved on September 23, 2003, to
remove 0.88 acres from its extreme northwestern corner, as depicted on the Conceptual Master
Plan contained in the staff report. This 0.88 acres, permitted for commercial uses on the
approved Master Plan, is to be added to the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD to provide
additional parking capacity. The subject amendment would require only minor revisions to the
approved Artesa Pointe PUD document and Master Plan to reflect the deletion of this acreage
from the PUD's northwestern boundary; therefore no other changes to either document are
proposed. All changes to the PUD document are shown in strike - through and underline format in
the proposed ordinance attached to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The rezoning action, in 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 CPUD is approved, a portion of the existing land will be developed and the new
development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities.
The County collects all applicable impact fees before the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impacts of each new development on its public facilities. These impact fees are used to
fund projects identified in the Growth Management Plan's (GMP) Capital Improvement Element
(CIE) as needed to maintain adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally,
in order to meet the requirements of Section 10.02.07(C) of the Land Development Code, fifty
percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project are required to be
paid simultaneously with the approval of each final local development order. Other fees collected
Page 1 of 5
Agenda item No. 8A
July 22. 2005
Page 2 of 34
before the issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees
associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system.
Please note that the inclusion of impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes
only; they are not included in the criteria used by Staff and the Planning Commission to analyze
this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
Artesa Pointe PUD presently comprises all of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict on the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The primary intent of this subdistrict is to provide for a mixture
of regional commercial uses and residential development to serve the South Naples, Royal
Fakapalm and Marco Island areas. The subject 0.88 acres is within a commercial component of
the Artesa Pointe PUD, and its annexation into the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD would be
compatible with respect to its current land use. However, as the Henderson Creek Subdistrict is
limited to a maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial uses, if the 0.88 acres were removed
from the PUD, it would still remain within the Henderson Creek Subdistrict and, therefore, no
commercial development would be eligible on it.
Conclusion:
The proposed PUD amendment has no impact on consistency as it relates to the GMP, as all uses
associated with the subject parcel will remain consistent with the aforementioned designation.
The subject PUD amendment may, therefore, be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use
— Element (FLUE) of the GMP.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT:
Approval of this PUDA to remove an 0.88 -acre parcel from its boundaries would have no
affordable housing impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and determined that there are no
environmental issues associated with it.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
This petition was not heard by the EAC.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) heard this petition at their March 20, 2008
meeting, and voted 8 -0 to forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval.
Although this item received a unanimous recommendation and staff has not received any letters
of objection to the project from the cormnunity, it is being placed on the regular agenda due to
_. the fact that its approval is contingent upon its companion item's approval.
Page 2 of 5
Agenda Item No, 8A
July 22. 2008
Page 3 of 34
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is an amendment to the existing Artesa Pointe PUD (Ordinance No. 03 -46) which proposes
to amend the Statement of Compliance, Legal Description and Master Plan in order to reflect a
0.88 -acre reduction of land in the PUD. This proposed amendment is quasi - judicial in nature. As
such the burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is
consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the BCC, should it
consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be
accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria.
Criteria for PUD Rezones
Ask yourself the follow ng questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for
approval or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development
proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements,
contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall he niade only
after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of
the Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions
may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of
assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and
private.
7. Consider: 'The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to
accommodate expansion.
S. Consider: Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are
justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
Page 3 of 5
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 4 of 34
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern?
11. Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development, or otherx�ise affectpublic safety?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to
an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ( "reasonably ") be used in
accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site
alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range
of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
Page 4 of 5
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 5 of 34
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone on
the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of
service adopted in the Collier County Gro�rth Management Plan and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch.106, article III as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that
the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare?
The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the
written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive
Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the
Board of County Commissioners hearing as these materials relate to these criteria.
This item is legally sufficient for Board action. - -MMSS
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve PUDA - 2007 -AR- 11734.
PREPARED BY:
John -David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
Page 5 of 5
Page I of 2
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 6 of 34
file: / /C:\AgendaTest \Export \1 l I -July% 2022% 202008 \08. %20ADVERTISED %20PUBLIC... 7/15/2008
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item Number:
8A
Item Summary:
At the petitioner's request, this item is continued from the June 24, 2008 BCC meeting. This
item must be heard BEFORE item PUDZ - 2006 -AR -10875 and requires that all participants
be sworn in and ex parts disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA- 2007 -AR-
11734 KRG 951 and 41, LLC, represented by D- Wayne Arnold, AICP, of 0. Grady Minor and
Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson,
P.A., is requesting an amendment to the Artesa Pointe PUD to remove a +/- 0.88 acre parcel
of land and add it to the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD abutting its northern boundary.
The subject property is located approximately 1/4 of a mile south of the intersection of Collier
Boulevard and US 41, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East of Collier County,
Florida (Companion item to PUDZ - 2006 -AR- 10675).
Meeting Date:
7/22/2008 9:00:00 AM
Prepared By
John -David Moss
Senior Planner Date
Community Development &
Zoning & Land Development 5/15/2008 9:35:14 AM
Environmental Services
Approved By
-- Ray Bellows
Chief Planner Date
Community Development &
Zoning & Land Development Review 7/1/2008 5:20 PM
Environmental Services
Approved By
Judy Puig
Operations Analyst Date
Community Development &
Community Development &
713/2008 3:35 PM
Environmental Services
Environmental Services Admin.
Approved By
Marjorie M. Student - Stirling
Assistant County Attorney Date
County Attorney
County Attorney Office 7/812008 2:50 PM
Approved By
Susan Murray, AICP
Zoning & Land Development Director Date
Community Development &
Zoning & Land Development Review 7/8/2008 3:00 PM
Environmental Services
Approved By
'
Community Development &
Joseph K. Schmitt
Environmental Services Adminstrator Date
Community Development&
Community Development&
Environmental Services
Environmental Services Admin. 71812008 7:54 PM
l Approved By
OMB Coordinator
OMB Coordinator Date
file: / /C:\AgendaTest \Export \1 l I -July% 2022% 202008 \08. %20ADVERTISED %20PUBLIC... 7/15/2008
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 7 of 34
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
7/912008 9:27 AM
Approved By
Mark Isackson
Budget Analyst
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
7/9/2008 9:54 AM
Approved By
James V. Mudd
County Manager
Date
Board of County
Commissioners
County Manager's Office
7/11/2008 10:30 AM
file: / /C:\AgendaTest \Export\ 111 -July% 2022% 202008 \08. %20ADVERTISED %20PUBLIC... 7/15/2008
Agenda Item No. 8A
AGENDA ITENyd2, 2008
8 of 34
Col ler County
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
HEARING DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MARCH 20, 2008
PETITION NO: PUDA- 2007 -AR- 11734, ARTESA POINTE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
COMPANION ITEMS: PUDZ - 2006 -AR -10875 AND CPSS -06 -01
KRG 951 AND 41, LLC
30 S. Meridian Street, Suite 1100
Indianapolis, IN 46204
AGENTS:
Mr. Wayne Arnold, AICP
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
3800 Via del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
REOUESTED ACTION:
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire,
Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the Artesa Pointe Planned Unit Development (PUD)
to remove a +/- 0.88 acre parcel of land and add it to the proposed Tamiami Crossing Commercial
Planned Unit Development (CPUD) abutting its northern boundary, (The Tamiami Crossing
CPUD application is companion item PUDZ - 2006 -AR- 10875; and the companion Small Scale
Comprehensive Planning Ammendment is CPSS- 06 -01.)
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The X82 -acro subject property is located approximately 1/4 of a mile south of the intersection of
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the Tamiami Trail (US 41), in Section 3, Township 51 South,
Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida (see the location map on following page).
Artasa Pointe PUDA- 2007-AR -11734
March 20, 2008 CCPC
Page 1 of 6
a0M
�/\
ƒ
7 � ,
.'
t� ?Uavav /�
,
\�
\ \ \
2\ �
2 ) §
§ �
�� ..
: . .
�y( ?2�22T2
�■ ,
l°°
!!§ \
��.._
! l ,
� � |
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 11 of 34
The purpose of this petition is to amend the Artesa Pointe PUD, approved on September 23, 2003,
to remove 0.88 acres from its extreme northwestern corner, as depicted on the Conceptual Master
Plan on the preceding page, This 0.88 acres, permitted for commercial uses on the approved
Master Plan, is to be added to the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD to provide additional panting
capacity, As the subject amendment would only require minor revisions to the approved Artesa
Pointe PUD document and Master Plan to reflect the deletion of this acreage from the PUD's
northwester boundary, no other changes to either document are proposed. All changes to the PUD
document are shown in strike - through and underline format in the proposed ordinance attached to
this report,
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Vacant land (proposed for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD), zoned C -4 (General
Commercial)
East: Vacant land (proposed for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD), zoned A; US 41 then
vacant land, zoned A (Rural Agricultural)
South: IIoliday Manor mobile home park, zoned MH (Mobile Home)
West: Collier Boulevard; then golf course, zoned Eagle Creek PUD
AERIAL VIEW
Attesa Pointe PUDA•2007 -AR -11734
March 20, 2008 DCPC
Page 2 or 6
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 12 of 34
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Artesa Pointe PUD presently comprises all of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict on the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The primary intent of this subdistrict is to provide for a mixture of
regional commercial uses and residential development to serve the South Naples, Royal Fakapalm
and Marco Island areas. The subject 0.88 acres is within a commercial component of the Artesa
Pointe PUD, and its annexation into the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD would be compatible
with respect to its current land use. However, as the Henderson Creek Subdistrict is limited to a
maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial uses, if the 0.88 acres were removed from the
PUD, it would still remain within the Henderson Creek Subdistrict and, therefore, no commercial
development would be eligible on it.
Conclusion:
The proposed PUD amendment has no impact on consistency as it relates to the GMP, as all uses
associated with the subject parcel will remain consistent with the aforementioned designation. The
subject PUD amendment may, therefore, be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Rlament
(FLUE) of the GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the LDC criteria
upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13.B.5. and
10.03.05.1-1, which establish factual bases to support a recommendation. The Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on
the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as separate documents, and have been
attached to the staff report as Exhibits A and B. In addition to these documents, staff offers the
following analysis:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and determined
that there are no environmental issues associated with it.
Transportation Planning Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed this project, and
there are no outstanding transportation issues.
Utilities Review: This project is located within the Collier County Water and Sewer District. The
proposed amendment does not impact the utilities provision, which is the same as for the existing
PUD,
Emergency Management Review: The Artesa Pointe PUD is located in a Category 1 Hurricane
Surge Zone which requires evacuation during some hurricane events. Because this is a commercial
PUDA, the Emergency Management Department has no issues with the approval of this petition.
Zoning Review: As noted in the preceding GMP Consistency review, the subject parcel is located
in the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, which permits a maximum commercial gross floor
area of 325,000 square feet. As the boundaries of the Artesa Pointe PUD are coterminous with this
subdistrict, and the PUD has already been approved for 325,000 square feet of commercial uses,
Artesa Pointe PIJDA- 2007 -AR -71734
March 20, 2006 CCPC
Page 3 of 6
Agenda Item No. SA
July 22, 2008
Page 13 of 34
the subject 0,98 acres would not be eligible for any of the commercial development proposed with
the companion Tanuami Crossing CPUD, Instead, this acreage would only be permitted to be used
for parking, as shown on the Tamiami Crossing Master Plan by Q. Grady Minor and Associates,
P.A., dated July 2006, as revised through October 2007, submitted with companion PUDZ -AR-
2006- 10875, and included as Exhibit C of this report. As the subject parcel is adjacent to areas
proposed for parking and preservation, no compatibility issues are anticipated,
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NM:
(Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator)
The applicant duly noticed and held the NIM for Artesa Pointe (PUDA - 2007 -AR- 11734),
Tarniami Crossing (PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875), and ilia associated Comprehensive Planning
Amendment (CPSS -06 -1) as companion items on September 26, 2007, at Manatee Elementary
School. Approximately 70 people attended, some of whom identified themselves as residents of
Eagle Creek. Also present were County staff, County Commissioner Donna Fiala, Planning
Commissioner Bob Murray, the applicant and his agents.
Most of the questions posed by attendees focused on traffic impacts and the County Transportation
Divisions' plans for area road improvements. The applicant told the audience that a signal on US-
41 between the site and one quarter mile from the Habitat for Humanity project would be sought,
with an alternate location further east, subject to approval of the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT), The applicant's team stated that there were plans for access points on CR
951 and US 41, and two interconnection points with Artesa Pointe PUD.
Attendees were interested in finding out if there was a big box retailer like Super - Target proposed.
Eric Strickland of Kite Development responded that a box retail or grocery store was proposed,
and that his firm is indeed a Target developer. He also stated that the project's projected opening
was for late 2008. The agent added that the proposed zoning was primarily for C -4 (General
Commercial) uses, and that a garden center was also a potential end -user. A commitment was
made by members of the applicant's team that there would be no tattoo parlor,
The Developer's agent, Richard Yovanovich, stated that the applicant's team was willing to speak
with any Homeowners' Associations that were interested in meeting with them. He also told the
group that these items would not be on the summary agenda if there were any objections from the
neighbors (since attendees felt that the Wal -Mart in Artesa Pointe had been approved without
adequate notification of the public hearing date). Mr. Yovanovich then advised the audience to file
any objections to the proposals with the County's Planning staff.
The NIM officially ended at approximately 6:30 p.m, Transportation Planning Director Nick
Casalanguida said he and the applicant's team would remain after the meeting to discuss developer
contribution agreements and improvements of the Collier Boulevard/US-41 intersection.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission forward Petition PUDA - 2007 -AR -11734 to the Board of County Commissioners with
a recommendation of approval.
Arteae Pointe PUDA - 2007 -AR -11734
March 20, 2008 CCPC
Pape 4 of 5
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 14 of 34
PREPARED BY:
JO -DAVID MSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER bATFJ
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIIJWE,D BY:
2 -Z8 - 08
MARJORIE M. S�TIJA NT -STl� RLINNG U DATE
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
RAYM TD . BE LOWS, MANAGER Z ATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
—`aUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
JO H K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR
C UNITY DEVELOPMENT &
IRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
� /49 /eC�
c3 a
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the May 27, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARKP. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
Exhibits: A. Rezone Findings
B. PUD Findings ,
C. Tamiami Crossing CPUD Master Plan
Artesia Pointe PUDA - 2007 -AR -11734
March 20, 2008 CCPC
Page 6 of 5
DATE
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 15 of 34
EXHIBIT A
REZONE; FINDINGS
PETITION PUDA - 2006 -AR -11734
Artesa Pointe PUD
Chapter 10.03.05•G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall
show that the 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, & policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan,
Finding s: Page three of the staff report explains how this petition is consistent with the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). As stated, the
subject property is designated Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, and the primary
intent of the subdistrict is to provide for a mixture of regional commercial uses and
residential development to serve the South Naples, Royal Fakapalm and Marco Island
areas. As the Henderson Creek Subdistrict is limited to a maximum of 325,000 square
feet of commercial, which is already built, the 0.88 acres would not be eligible for
development on it. No development is proposed for the site; therefore, the project is
consistent with the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Findings: The subject site is bordered by the C -4 zoning district to the north and west
and by the Artesa Pointe PUD, which permits commercial uses consistent with the C -1
through C-5 zoning districts, to the east and south. None of the abutting parcels have
been cleared,
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts;
Findin s: Because the 0.88 acres of the proposed PUD amendment is part of an existing
mixed -use PUD, it would not create an isolated district. As noted above, the subject site
is already surrounded by property with similar land uses. For these reasons, the
amendment request would not create an isolated district relative to the adjacent ones.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Findings: The existing boundaries of the subject 0.88 acres are not irregularly drawn;
however, the PUD into which it is proposed for inclusion is indeed irregular in relation to
the majority of parcels in the County, which are typically rectangular, The subject
property was created by the developer's assemblage of available parcels in the area,
which resulted in a rather unusual shape for the proposed PUD, The location map on page
two of the staff report highlights the boundary of the subject parcel.
Page t of
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 16 of 34
EXHIBIT A
S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
Findi : The proposed PUDA is not obligatory at this location. However, the request is
reasonable because the property would remain part of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use
Subdistrict and, therefore, unavailable for any further commercial development other than
parking.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
indin s: The removal of 0,88 acres from Artesa Pointe will not adversely affect the
living conditions in the neighborhood, Furthermore, the proposed use for the property
would be similar to that already approved for the Artesa Pointe PUD.
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.
Fin 'n s: The exclusion of 0.88 acres from the Artesa Pointe will have any impact on
traffic.
y` 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Findings: The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems, as
the existing water management system is designed to prevent drainage problems on the
site. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place to ensure review for
adequate drainage on the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
Findings: The proposed change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties in
terms of light and air,
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area;
Findings: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be
internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of
factora including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since
value determination is driven by the market. There is no guarantee that the project will be
marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Page 2 of 3
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 17 of 34
EXHIBIT A
Findings: The adjacent properties allow similar uses, Therefore, the proposal would not
be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
Findings: As stated, the proposed amendment complies with the Henderson Creek Mixed
Use Subdistrict designation of the GMP. Furthermore, land use applications are subject to
a public hearing process to insure that they do not constitute a grant of special privileges
or are inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity in which they are situated.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons wily the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning;
Findings: There are no substantial reasons why the property could not be used in
accordance with existing zoning.
14. Whether the ehange suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County;
Findings: The proposed amendment conforms to the goals and objectives of the GMP
and is compatible with the surrounding property.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
Findings: There are many sites that are already zoned to accommodate the proposed
development; however this is not the determining factor when evaluating the
appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The proposed PUDA was reviewed and deemed
compliant with the GMP and the LDC, as was the Tamiami Crossing CPUD proposed in
conjunction with this petition.
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.
Findings: Any development would require some site alteration and the subject site will
have to cleared to execute the proposed parking lot.
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.
Findings: The proposed PUD petition will have no impact on public facilities or services.
Page 3 of 3
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 18 of 34
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS FOR PUD
PETITION PUDA- 2006 -AR -11734
Artesa Pointe PUD
Section 10,02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission
to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans` compliance with the following criteria:
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed In
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Findings: The project is located within the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict on
the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The primary intent of this subdistrict is to provide for
a mixture of regional commercial uses and residential development to serve the South
Naples, Royal Fakapalm and Marco Island areas. The PUDA will not affect surrounding
areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water or other utilities. However, it should be
noted that the development of the companion Tamiami Crossing CPUD will have to be in
accordance with all applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) and
Growth Management Plan (GMP) at the time of issuance of any development order,
3. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
- contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in these proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense.
Findin s: Evidence of unified control was provided with the application. All
arrangements for the continuing operation and maintenance of the Artesa Pointe PUD
were made at the time of the original rezone and will not be affected by this PUDA.
4. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives
and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Findings: The project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
which designates the subject property as Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict. The
subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
GMP, as explained on page three of the staff report,
5. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
Include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening requirements.
Findings: Section 4.07.02 of the LDC has specific development requirements for PUD
districts to insure that they are compatible with established or plarmed uses of the
surrounding neighborhoods. As noted in the staff report, the subject parcel is located in
the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, which permits a maximum commercial gross
Page t of
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 19 of 34
EXHIBIT B
floor area of 325,000 square feet. As the boundaries of the Artesa Pointe PUD are
coterminous with this subdistrict, and the PUD has already been approved for 325,000
square feet of commercial uses, the subject 0.88 acres would not be eligible for any further
commercial development. Instead, this acreage would only be limited to parking area,
which would be compatible with the surrounding uses.
6. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Findings: The minimum 30 percent open space requirement of the LDC, described in
section 2.14 of the PUD document, would still be met if this amendment were approved.
7. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Findings: No capacity issues would be created by the approval of this petition.
8. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
Findings: As previously stated, no further expansion is permitted on the Artesa Pointe
PUD.
9. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
Findings: Staff has reviewed this petition and found it to be. consistent with the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) and all the elements of the OMP. Approval of the subject
PUDA will not have any impact on the existing Artesa Pointe PUD.
Page 2 of 2
II
s
1
i
Z
9 y N 0 6 9
1
lip
3 »IIIIII °'�■
333111HI
1 , �
3 }7111111' l � o / y u
r
'l
i
e�
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 20 of 34
4
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET ldriffzp�
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
2800 NORTH HORSESHOfVt of 34
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 403 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968
PETITION NO (AR) PUDA- 2007 -AR -11734 REV: I
PROJECT NAME Project: 2002010019
PROJECT NUMBER Date: 5/11/07 DUE: 6/11/07
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
NAME OF APPLICANT (S) KRG 951 AND 41, LLC
ADDRESS 30 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET, SUITE 1100 CITY INDLANAPOLIS STATE IN ZIP 46204 -3565
TELEPHONE # 317 -809 -6960 CELL #
E -MAIL ADDRESS: F.STRICKLAND@,KITEREALTY.COM
FAX # 317 -577 -5605
NAME OF AGENT D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP - 0. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
ADDRESS 3800 VIA DEL REY CITY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34134
TELEPHONE # 239 -947 -1144 CELL # FAX # 239- 947 -0375
E-MAIL ADDRESS: WARNOLDAGRADYMINOR.COM
NAME OF AGENT RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH, ESQ. - GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A.
ADDRESS 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 300 CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34103
TELEPHONE # 239- 435 -3535 CELL # FAX # 239- 435 -1218
E -MAIL ADDRESS: RYOVANOVICHna GC.ILAW.COM
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF Ji
ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE
REGULATIONS.
Application For Public Hearing For 1'UU Rezone 1118107
Complete the following for all Associations) affiliated with this petition. Provide
additional sheets if necessary.
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS CITY
STATE ZIP
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS CITY
STATE ZIP
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS CITY
STATE ZIP
NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS CITY
STATE ZIP
NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS CITY
STATE ZIP
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
Not Applicable
Application For Public Nearing For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 23 of 34
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and
stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each.
C.
n'
Name and Address Percentage of Ownership
KRG 951 and 41, LLC 100%
30 South Meridian Street, Suite 1100
Indianapolis, IN 46204 -3565
If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust
with the percentage of interest.
Name and Address Percentage of Ownership
Not Applicable
If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the
name of the general and /or limited partners.
Name and Address Percentage of Ownership
Not Applicable
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Resonc (/18/07
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 24 of 34
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
Not Applicable
Percentage of Ownership
Date of Contract:
f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all
individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust.
Name and Address
g. Date subject property acquired M 2007 leaser 9 TeFFn of lease
..
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option:
Date option terminates: , or
Anticipated closing date
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.
Application For Public Hcaring For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22. 2008
Detailed legal description 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 /Township /Range
Lot: Block:
3 / 51S / 26E
Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #:
Metes & Bounds Description: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 °41'50" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,361.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF U.S. 41 (STATE ROAD 90) (200 FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY); THENCE RUN
NORTH 54 020'16" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 966,32 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF A 100 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 76 AT PAGES 127 THROUGH 129, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN SOUTH 20 °16'12" WEST,
ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 203.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL
CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
WESTERLY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,799.93 FEET;
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09 °43'48 "; SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 474.91 FEET AT A BEARING OF
SOUTH 25 008'06" WEST, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 475,48 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THE SAME
BEING A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 3;
THENCE RUN NORTH 89 °26'59" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR, A DISTANCE OF 2,833.22 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF ISLE OF CAPRI ROAD (STATE ROAD 951) (RIGHT -OF-
WAY VARIES); THENCE RUN NORTH 02 °28'03" EAST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF
1,284.83 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, RUN THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES
ALONG THE LINES OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2529 AT PAGES 1377 AND
1378 NORTH 90 000'00" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 02 °28'03" EAST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT "C" OF TRAIL
RIDGE, AS DESCRIBED IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGES 71 THRU 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 055'57" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT "C ",
FOR A DISTANCE OF 196.99 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 00 °04'03" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.05 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 °55'57" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 683.32' FEET TO A POINT THAT IS A DISTANCE
OF 400.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF-
WAY LINE OF U.S. 41 (STATE ROAD 90) (200 FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY); THENCE RUN SOUTH 54 °20'16" EAST
FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,654.49 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 35 °39'44" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF U.S. 41; THENCE RUN SOUTH 54 °20'16"
EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 81.610 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Size of property: ft. X ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres 81 +
Address /general location of subject property: Subject property is located approximately 114 mile south ofthe
Intersection of Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41.
Application For Public &gazing For PDD Re nc 1/18/07
Agenda Item No. 8A
PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): ® Residential ❑ Community Facilities July22, 2008
Page 26 of 34
® Commercial ❑ Industrial
Zoning Land use
N A. C -2 & C -4 Vacant (proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD)
S MH Residential Mobile Homes (Holiday Manor Coop)
E A. MH & PUD Undeveloped, Residential Mobile Homes, Winding Cypress DRI
W PUD Eagle Creek PUD. Residential
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject
property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space
is inadequate, attach on separate page).
Section /Township /Range 3 / 51S / 26E
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: 00726724301 & 00725841007
Metes & Bounds Description: See attached Deeds
Applicalica For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
SIM Ewa,
N FM V-0 Mrk-
0
This application is requesting a rezone from the PUD zoning district(s) to the
CPUD zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property: Wal -Mart retail store. Habitat for Humans home sites and
Partially undeveloped proposed commercial. retail.
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: The legal description and Master Plan are to
be revised to demonstrate the removal of the 0.88± acre parcel from the PUD.
Original PUD Name: Artesa Pointe PUD Ordinance No.:
Rmn 4T
Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis
and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of
the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone
request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials
and documentation in support of the request.
PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.6)
The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation
to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
The proposed PUD amendment proposes to remove a small (0.88± acre) parcel from the
Artesa Pointe PUD and incorporate it into the proposed Tamiami Crossings CPUD. The
subject property is already zoned PUD and was intended for commercial use. The
surrounding area remains suitable for continued commercial development.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after
consultation with the county attorney.
The documents provided demonstrate unified control of the subject property and
proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD.
3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth
management plan.
The proposed amendment has no impact on consistency with the growth management
plan, and the property's use will remain consistent with the Henderson Creek Mixed Use
Subdistrict.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions RWKCWA6
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and
screening requirements.
No compatibility relationships change from the proposed amendment. The proposed
amendment simply moves the property into the adjacent PUD.
S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The Artesa Pointe PUD will continue to meet Its open space requirements and the
proposed Tamlami Crossings CPUD will provide30 %of its acreage as usable open space.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Public facilities will be available at the time of construction as required by the County's
concurrency management system.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
The subject 0.88± acre parcel is presently within a commercial component of a PUD and
its inclusion into the Tamlami Crossings CPUD will provide for unified control within each
respective PUD. No expansion beyond what has been proposed is anticipated.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
The subject property will comply with the PUD regulations established for the proposed
Tamiami Crossing CPUD which are appropriate and consistent with that for commercial
development.
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.
Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public
hearing been held on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If so, what was the nature of that hearing?
Applieidua For Public Hearing For PUD Rozonc I! W07
Agenda Item No. 8A
NOTICE:
This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency' has
been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The
application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application
through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing
or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning for a period of six (6) months. An application
deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed" through
inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re-
opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting
of a determination of "sufficiency ". Further review of the project will be subject to the
then current code. (LDC Section 10.03.05.Q.)
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 1/18/07
Agenda Item No. 8A
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST 15 TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKETIN THE EXACT ORDER
LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION
AInTG• IMr'nMPFI TF CI IRMITTAI S WII I Nf3T RE ACCEPTED_
REQUIREMENTS
# OF
COPIES
REQUIRED
NOT
REQUIRED
I Additional set If located in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area
Copies of detailed description of why amendment is necessary
24
X
Completed Application with list of Permitted Uses; Development
Standards Table; List of proposed deviations from the LDC (if any); List of
Developer Commitments (download from website for current form
24
X
Pre-application meeting notes
24
X
PUD Conceptual Master Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 Y2" x 11" copy
24
X
Revised PUD Conceptual Master Plan 24" x 36 "and One 8 )1" x 1 I" copy
24
X
Original PUD document/ ordinance and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF
AMENDING THE PUD
24
X
Revised PUD application with changes crossed thru & underlined
24
X
Revised PUD application w /amended Title page w /ord #'s, LDC
10.02.13.A.2
24
X
Deeds /Legal's & Survey (if boundary of original PUD is amended)
2
X
List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation
2
X
Owner /Affidavit signed & notarized
2
X
Covenant of Unified Control
2
X
Completed Addressing checklist
2
X
NEMENNEZZMEEMN now
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital /electronic copy of EIS or
exemption justification
4
X
Historical Survey or waiver request
4
X
Utility Provisions Statement w /sketches
4
X
Architectural rendering of proposed structures
4
X
Survey, signed & sealed
4
X
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver
7
X
Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min scaled 1 " =400'
S
X
Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans (CDRom or
Diskette)
1
X
Letter of No Objection from the U.S. Postal Service
1
X
If located In RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas
Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry 1, Lacavera, State of Florida Division of Forestry ® 239- 690 -3500 for information regarding "Wildfire
Mitigation & Prevention Plan ", LDC Sect1qQ 2.03.08. A. 2.a.(b)i.c.
r,
/ f
_ Applicant gent Signature Date
Application For Public Hwring For PUD Rezone W8/07
9
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 20Q8
Page 31 of 34
ORDINANCE NO. 09-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 03 -46, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE ARTESA POINTE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), BY AMENDING THII
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SECTION 1.2,
ENTITLED "LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN ORDER TO
REMOVE A 0.88 +1- PARCEL OF LAND FROM THIS
PUD, AND REPLACING EXHIBIT "A," THE PUD
MASTER PLAN, WITH A NEW EXHIBIT "A," PUD
MASTER PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance Number 0346, which established the Artesa Point Planned Unit Development Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2004, the Board of Comity Commissioners approved Ordinance
Number 04 -17 amending Ordinance Number 03 -46 in order to conect scrivener's errors; and
WHEREAS, Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., representing KRG 951 & 41, LLC,
petitioned One Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance Number 03 -46, as amended, for
the Artesa Point Planned Unit Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The introductory paragraph of the Statement of Compliance of Ordinance Number 0346, as
amended, (Artesa Pointe Planted Unit Development) is hereby onended to read as follows:
The purpose of this Section is to expross the intent of Gateway Shoppes, LLC,
hereinafter referred to as the Development, to create a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) on 82 -U +/- acres of land located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be
Artesa Pointe. The development of Artesa Pointe will be in compliance with the
planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in die Growth
Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the growth policies and
land development regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Plan,
Future Lend Use Element and other applicable regulations for the following' reasons:
SECTION TWO: AMENDMENTS TO LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Section 1.2 entitled "Legal Description" of Ordinance Number 03 -46, as amended, (Artesa
Pointo Planned Unit Development), is hereby amended to read as follows:
Page 1 of 3
Words underlined am additions; words etmok4hm4h are deletions.
1.2 LEOALDIWOUP77ON
-- -:.mow. ; ad- leeale�J> rSeelioa3rTevmebig- St�Snndr;�tso6a26'a3ach-✓;°Nia
6' eneiyr- Plerida- 4eing- fnore�aiiatlia rly-daBeri4aA- oe- feNewo!
6ouunrnaoaHhe- gasbnueAeaeaT ea- sESeelinn- 3;- 3' exvreW9'33"SeuB §- iimrge- 26-Eesls
maimgfkeW73r48teeHetho-eod- ofseibeuwr, thesnmeiiNnga -W llfFax+Ao-nepMrma
them of IWCofLseseodrlre}Fe @eai4 Saofien- 3s- 11xv�eetuu-neHl " "•".4,- �`�"�:• -r wlc'�e�8
eei4noWtlino-ferrodlWenao-o€ 383b�33feet- te- e- ge} aFanN ,�eaKtetlY-e��F- efwaY;'ooef
kla et' 6eA11-RenA-FStnln-ReeA�Xii) ( reg�t- o�lee+roa- neAfi-02Y28- 93ianslr
olong- setA- easledY - {ine� fer- a�ietunen- o£- 1; 284�S3- -faeS- We�mrl�- eaFd- rFl9r1"oLwey
IhlerFm till e-t eAewnfg4enr( 4) eedr eesoiangdhel{ uore €dloyrepepydnvodheJtin- OH'wiol
ReeordaH eek- 55;39- ot- Yagea- Iaa7 -ond- 1378- xeNr9Br8B 'B�"- eeeFfer- n%Iolerwe- eHD8A9
feet; diesoe -cult a ph- o,.-- �v- oa- v®. -.a_ r_r- a- �i6leN..c -o, - ...0.o3- �wrmePUe- Fun- Iloli�
B�B9�d4='- anFfeF- e�lietal�eaee- sanbBU lh84%35= 57"- eeGFieM- dieleuee
ef-867A9404a. oklmhO is- e�iel eneeef-0 BB, 9B- feef- eeutkaelyefnxA- peFaNaWvi[h -B�e
nfoF W11e11ed4GULh°-`- __. _rWay HO .r Frc _ei es elg.. y(1)Z�:Pn reB1.gi { -oj.
wey}' �- dFnrea- Froniren•,.�4°����-- o.,.r�.F�- die— �-a+-;ti.`.f' _ _ _ _.ropq
'3 °' "•••�� _.s4- fats - distance ef- 40899- feeHe- a- yeinPSn -the- laid- sou�rer±Y+6BNloFwny
Fiese�il. S�- 41{- Fhacea- rwr�en1k34�29- 1G'= esati-alengsoW -Sine; fee- o-dieNweo- eF699fi9
Page 2 of 3
Words underline are additions; words straGIE tHm4i are deletions,
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 32 of 34
Agenda Item No. 8A
July 22, 2008
Page 33 of 34
AMENDMENTS TO MASTER PLAN
Exhibit A, the PUD Master Plan, of Ordinance Number 03 -46, as amended, (Artesa Pointe
Planned Unit Development) is hereby replaced with a new Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan,
SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by supor-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
By;
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
� a• arjorie M. Student - Stirling
Assistant County Attorney
By:
TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN
Page 3 of 3
Words underlined are additions; words str;aole through are deletions.
-N O
T�
m
4c
i
' i
;� S
r g
Hm
1
i Rio €
00 !G
El El
w t
F I
i.
I
f•
I•
jao � yy