Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Rivanna Lakes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bonita Springs holds first reading on Rivanna Lakes annexation, staff warns of state review
Summary
City staff presented a multi‑step annexation and zoning package for the Rivanna Lakes project that would bring roughly 189.5 acres into Bonita Springs and allow a mixed‑use plan with up to 299 homes and about 100,000 square feet of commercial space; staff flagged state comments on consistency with recent legislation (referred to as SB 180).
The Bonita Springs City Council on first reading heard a staff overview of a multi‑phase annexation and zoning package for the Rivanna Lakes project, a proposal that would bring about 189.5 acres of contiguous unincorporated land into the city and rezone roughly 204 acres for mixed‑use development.
Mike Feagon of Community Development told the council the plan will come to the city in three parts: three annexation petitions covering nine properties, followed by a comprehensive‑plan text and map amendment, and then a rezoning to a mixed‑use plan development. “This is a total of 9 properties spread out between 3 separate annexation petitions,” Feagon said, and staff walked the council through a timeline for second‑reading hearings in January.
The zoning petition would permit up to 299 residential dwelling units and about 100,000 square feet of commercial uses, Feagon added. He also told the council the zoning board recommended approval by a 5–2 vote at its hearing.
Several council members asked staff to clarify inconsistencies they found between packet materials and the mixed‑use planning documents, including the location of a proposed cellular facility and the route and maintenance responsibilities for a public trail. Council member Fitzpatrick flagged the Kiel Canal cleanup and ongoing maintenance as an item that needs clearer funding and operational detail before a final decision.
Traffic and regional infrastructure questions were a recurring theme. One council member summarized correspondence from the MPO, noting an initial funding allocation of roughly $8,000,000 for early phases of a Bonita Beach Road interchange but saying scheduled construction is distant: “that is scheduled to occur in the 2041 timeframe,” the council member said, and urged staff to document the timeline for the public record.
Staff also told the council it has received comments from the state indicating that the proposed text amendment may not be consistent with a recent state law (referenced in staff remarks as SB 180), which limits more restrictive local land‑use regulations. Special land‑use counsel has attempted to contact the state and staff said they would work with the applicant to adjust the January hearing schedule if necessary.
No formal votes on the annexation or zoning petitions occurred at this meeting; staff indicated the items will be bundled and presented for more detailed public hearings and second readings in January. The council and staff agreed to continue refining the application materials and to address the specific concerns on traffic, trail alignment and canal maintenance before final consideration.
