CCPC Agenda 10/04/2016 COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
OCTOBER 4, 2016
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., OCTOBER 4, 2016, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR,3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON
ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE
ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED
BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR
GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO
THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN
MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED
IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT
PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING
THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH
RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH
THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING
NOTE: This item has been continued from the September 15,2016 CCPC meeting:
A. PUDA-PL20160001865: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2006-50, the Creekside Commerce Park
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), as amended, by increasing the allowable
square footage in the Industrial Commercial District by 166,000 square feet for a total of
716,000 square feet of gross floor area of industrial/commerce uses and increasing the acreage
from 41.6 to 49.90 net acres; by amending the Business District to increase the allowable
square footage of floor area from 260,000 square feet to 292,000 square feet including from
200,000 square feet to 242,000 square feet of office uses and from 60,000 to 50,000 square feet
of retail uses; by amending the Industrial Commerce District to allow parcels west of Goodlette
Frank Road to increase the zoned height from 35 feet to 50 feet except for Tract 5 on the
Master Plan which shall have a zoned height of 185 and actual height of 205 feet; by amending
the Business District to allow Tract 9 on the Master Plan east of Goodlette Frank Road to
increase the zoned height to 75 feet and actual height to 85 feet; by increasing the overall floor
area ratio from .35 to .45; by reducing the preserve requirement and by adding a deviation to
allow a portion of the preserve to be off-site; by adding a deviation to allow Tract 5 on the
Master Plan to be eligible for the County's architectural deviation process. The subject
property is located south of Immokalee Road and both east and west of Goodlette Frank
1
Road in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
106 acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows,Planning Manager]
5. ADJOURN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp
2
AGENDA ITEM 9-A
Colter County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20160001865, CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD
(COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
*APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER:
Arthrex, Inc.
Reinhold Schmieding, President, Director
1370 Creekside Boulevard
Naples,FL 34108
AGENTS:
D. Wayne Arnold Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Q. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Bonita Springs,FL 34134 Naples,FL 34103
*NOTE: The complete property ownership information is contained in Exhibit 1 of the
application.
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)consider amending
Ordinance Number 2006-50, the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD), as amended, by increasing the allowable square footage in the Industrial
Commercial District by 166,000 square feet for a total of 716,000 square feet of gross floor area
of industrial/commerce uses and increasing the acreage from 41.60 to 49.90 net acres; by
amending the Business District to increase the allowable square footage of floor area from
260,000 square feet to 294,000 square feet including increasing from 200,000 square feet to
242,000 square feet of office uses and decreasing from 60,000 to 50,000 square feet of retail
uses; by amending the Industrial Commerce District to allow parcels west of Goodlette-Frank
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 1 of 30
.740 t4cJjj:
m15o
'141406.III
Z..... aa� �®�
7 d E V ',��• „ e $ ti' e,,F® �v .-4, -- ..-1E1.. O
°/ J ' " r, I
;1,: : ;' ( . . :
All
I1 f Es a 3o
p
=jrl
p , I/� m�1111 CZ)
,,1: N Z-3
- - .. ilklipilli . _l� vat 4i.. 1.4d-..••--- -=•,, '. cs-07, ,
)1 ',.`; 611.1MtOolv, c\I
��f, 000k
®00 0 ci.
, 0
0 ,',; .' �`' 00
co cs,2
��' � '0i �E, ®0�®„ .'' 0-40
v®®ems' ®��ROOM ill Nairn111 1 ' ao
ggo
i lisp �,,, co
JJ
� z
CI- a.
i
N a
N
E
a�
E
Z §
0
I. Z N da JNI11fld liladL11V C U
O
Oa N LU E
0)
V
cc IL J ❑ a) Q. U
E
Cl.cu
----... k4%4ftkk::Y C E
ca
Ea
�i
%7''As. j[ N I—, 4 - !••ii
O x
U r
ce
z,iJ a
)p N
1I!welwel I
c
co z
w
a a
LIQ II!gJ PUeA E
E
U
O
0
N4 I
___ `;;;, glil
EL /PI � � ; � le
ill
� �
— AN
r/ 4aav�noe xaaHiav`r" Ili,
pif
0.
;s silI fif f ID {
8�7 r'.? + ?` }iii rob :1 ;t`
1 � Q� �'i'� j a
t
00
v I21
—pi,,,..i../0 o ffw1O
f%s`< v n2/ o«
II
giali
j m linj
� fr. i
Co mb n , i 5
f II2/ c r{{;i °,Si. 05 ;/ 1
1 t` i) A ::'
((
e t I 1 I IS,.SfLr% y j.• t
'\, _ -_7't-.' ___ Cl-PIN!RIOOE'C �IINNAAGE EABEMINTj t=�ltif_In it I,,j
r X1'1 — 'j I�-)il( -- - - i7 l
nil
f4iI. I
-� I-'LL EMWmR
to
m b i� Off
(G7N.,...\-.0•••_7(1?i> •• t nn w� ir 11
I
I
J
r, - T __.
5>c :.: +
_ .. ..._ .-.._...
r_ v...... .�.-..-rte.. ✓�3
aOODI.TTItiFRANK ROAD :-`— . ---------._..._-._...-..^` `\
N;/I/1 li
i I -. gilifi . 77.7? i \ I'lig/
!.%.,( ,q. , ii W '
iri g lig/ !
° 111111 tiii ;;.)1 f 0 A n1( T: 0 ti
ii
Qco
ao i c$ cr W�q �� % o j i g' 1
H Z
li 3
11 asa \ ^� ` t ,
1a it 1 " 1 I 1 1 n 21 8 i i r' ; O 3 amo 3aisri33_ao '— j J+ f
O 9.37 W 03 1- C Ria o Z j i yy; i > ( i'
oI ` ---
...._
23 r 1 j
Q {�/p� VV4 o o en i'{e •("C7r I t:A ..I
p g C °I .g i t,,(40,f.:5� R7 I I
III 1
NS 0 C N 3 a A. I ;M(::“M I t �AA� (I
11 °° $ � � i I 0 0 e
v -- I
Pi z
W A — 1 I IiI
o� a �aW —�_
11 II II It II p 11 i 8 Peg
E
o ° a� „�o yam
P.
V w 0p sam ar
o
11-
pi. g~ 15; 0 mwy
D nLooe �1
REVISED 09/02/2018 �.. �� p itaisaimeat •--- Z o
��!i.7 frosOlinnr
`arc`!- . .r. ..: «M.:::�a
Road to increase the zoned height from 35 feet to 50 feet except for Tract 5 on the Master Plan
which shall have a zoned height of 185 and actual height of 205 feet; by amending the Business
District to allow Tract 9 on the Master Plan east of Goodlette-Frank Road to increase the zoned
height to 75 feet and actual height to 85 feet; by increasing the overall floor area ratio from .35 to
.45; by reducing the preserve requirement and by adding a deviation to allow a portion of the
preserve to be off-site; by adding a deviation to allow Tract 5 on the Master Plan to be eligible
for the County's architectural deviation process.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located south of Immokalee Road and both east and west of Goodlette
Frank Road in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 106 acres. (Please see the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report).
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Creekside PUD was originally approved in Ordinance Number 97-51, and it along with two
subsequent ordinances which were repealed with the adoption of ordinance Number: 06-50. The
current Ordinance Number 16-05 was approved on March 22, 2016. The petitioner is now
proposing the following changes with this amendment:
• Increase allowable square footage in the (I/C)IndustriallCommerce District from 550,000
square feet to 716,000 square feet of gross floor area.
• The size of the I/C District will also increase from 41.6 acres to 49.90 net acres. t
• Increase allowable square footage in the (B) Business District from 260,000 square feet
to 294,000 square feet of floor area. Of this total, the area allocated to office uses will
increase from 200,000 square feet to 244,000 square feet and the area for retail uses will
decrease from 60,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet.
• Increase overall project floor area ratio (FAR)from .35 to .45, excluding parking garages.
• All additional square footage proposed will be for medical related land uses (No
additional land uses are proposed).
• Revise PUD Section 3.4.D to increase allowable"Zoned"building height for parcels west
of Goodlette-Frank Road from 35 feet to 50 feet. Facilities located on Tract 5 shall have a
maximum zoned height of 185 feet and an actual height of 205 feet.
• Revise PUD Section 4.4.D.a to increase allowable building height for Business Tract 9
from a zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60 feet to a zoned height of 75 feet
and an actual height of 85 feet.
• Conceptual Master Plan has been revised as follows:
o Modify internal vehicular circulation by vacating a portion of Creekside
Boulevard and routing the traffic around Tracts 4 and S via Creekside Street,
Creekside Parkway, and Arthrex Boulevard.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 4 of 30
o Replace minor project sign at Creekside Boulevard and Goodlette-Frank Road
with major project sign as provided for in PUD Section 2.20.B.
o Increase acreage of Business District Tract 9 located east of Goodlette-Frank r.
Road and decrease preserve area.
o Rectify land use summary acreage table and add deviation locations.
• Request two new project deviations:
o Revise PUD Section 4.5 to add a third deviation as follows: Deviation from LDC
Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i(a), Preservation Standards, a property owner may request
that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation
retention requirement be satisfied off-site for properties zoned commercial where
the on-site preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size to allow off-site
preservation where the on-site preserve requirement is more than 2 acres and
where the off-site preserve proposed is less than 2 acres, to permit an off-site
preserve area of 1.35± acres. The area impacted by the expansion of the `B'
District is located in the area east of Goodlette-Frank Road.
o Revise PUD Section 3.4.F to add a fourth deviation to require all I/C office
building to meet the requirements of LDC Section 5.05.08, except for buildings
located on Tract 5 which shall be eligible for the County's architectural deviation
process. This exemption is listed as a deviation in PUD Section 3.5.2.
Other PUD Sections have been revised to remove language that is redundant with the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC), to clarify federal and state permit responsibility. The
Master Plan has been revised to show the location of the signage deviation.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: SR-84 then (Collier's Reserve), 506± acres of mixed-use: 61.4± acres commercial, 385
residential units, 0.87 units per acre,Maximum Height 8-Stories or 80 feet, whichever is
greater,zoned Collier Tract 22 PUD; and a 61±acre (North Collier Hospital),Maximum
Height 5-Stories and shall not exceed 80 feet, (Zone B/Phase IT') shall not exceed 100
feet—All other structures shall not exceed 100 feet, zoned Collier Health Center PUD
1
East: Collier County Utilities Water Plant,Maximum Zoned Height:50 feet, zoned Industrial; a
17.74± acre commercial and medical park, Maximum Height: 45 feet, zoned SW
Professional Health Park PUD
South: Collier County Utilities Water Plant,Maximum Zoned Height: 50 feet, zoned Industrial;
and 2,104± acres of mixed-use: 80± acres commercial/industrial, 8,600 residential units,
Maximum Zoned Height: 50 feet for the multi family Tract, 80 feet for the Cultural
Center Tract, 100 feet for the Commercial Tract, zoned Pelican Marsh DRI
West: 35.24± acre Business Park,Maximum Zoned Height: 75 feet for Parcel A, zoned The Naples
Daily News BPUD(Business Park PUD)
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPDD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 5 of 30 5
'Al
� SUBJECT �v ,* a ` •. M
a
ii;—"'"'" PROPERTY ;°VP � �y - �, ,.
> .�►' "'
ifiliat
A;
• C-waa.0a tl+C•V Y 1,...,-�►'�.7 k � 9I d.
�"? C , r
,.
_ r
. ' i . - - 21 . te
t4.1... rA. —
. , '''.1' le• lit,
1 .�s
y+M
aj °gym y J w i
-
tis'telt tlunly,„p.,I,Anr•a....4 V....N4 # .+5 .1 ...
AERIAL PHOTO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed
PUD amendment and has made the following determination: The subject property is designated
Urban (Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The existing PUD, which allows a variety of
commercial and industrial uses, was approved in 1997 by Ordinance No. 97-51; FLUE
consistency for that approval is contained in the Statement of Compliance (most of the site was
previously zoned I, Industrial). The PUD was amended in 2006 by Ordinance No. 06-50 to
subtract+_3.11 acres at the northwest corner of the PUD so that it could be incorporated into the
existing Naples Daily News Business Park PUD. The PUD was amended in 2013 to add
hotel/motel to the list of principal uses permitted within the Industrial/Commerce District and the
Business District of the PUD; and add assisted living facilities (ALF), independent living units,
skilled nursing units, continuing care retirement communities, and intermediate care facilities, to
the list of restricted principal uses permitted within the Industrial/Commerce District and the
Business District of the PUD. Additionally, the amendment increased the maximum floor area
ratio (FAR) from .35 to .6 for the proposed new uses; eliminated the maximum FAR restriction
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 6 of 30
to individual parcels; added operational requirements for the proposed group housing uses; and,
increased the maximum building height to those parcels of the PUD located east of Goodlette-
Frank Road. No changes were made to the overall approved intensity (building square feet).
These amendments were deemed consistent with the FLUE based upon certain policies under
Objective 5, via the provision allowing medical offices and other similar uses within 1/4 mile of a
major medical facility such as North Collier Hospital, and via the Urban designation allowance
for group housing uses. The PUD was amended on March 22, 2016 by Ordinance #16-05. The
Ordinance authorized reducing the allowable square footage in the Industrial Commercial
District by 70,000 square feet for a total of 550,000 square feet of gross floor area of
industrial/commerce uses; by amending the Business District to add permitted uses from the
Industrial and the General Commercial C-4 zoning districts; by amending the Business District
to increase the allowable square footage of floor area from 150,000 square feet to 200,000 square
feet of office uses and from 40,000 to 60,000 square feet of retail uses;by amending the business
district to allow group housing east of Goodlette-Frank Road at the southeast quadrant of
Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road and to increase the zoned height to 75 feet and
actual height to 85 feet; by amending the business district to allow a hotel at the southeast corner
of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road and to reduce the building setback from
Immokalee Road to 350 feet; and by adding a sign deviation regarding the location of directory
signage; and revising the master plan to depict the sign deviation for the CPUD property. These
amendments were deemed consistent with the FLUE based upon Policy 5.1.
The proposed use additions are allowed by the existing Future Land Use Designation
Description - Section I.- Urban Designation 11., which states "Support medical facilities —
such as physicians'offices, medical clinics, medical treatment centers, medical research centers
and medical rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies—provided the dominant use is medical
related and the site is located within 1/4 mile of existing or approved hospitals or medical centers
which offer primary and urgent care treatment for all types of injuries and traumas, such as, but
not limited to, North Collier Hospital. The distance shall be measured from the nearest point of
the tract that the hospital is located on or approved for, to the project boundaries of the support
medical facilities. Approval of such support medical facilities may be granted concurrent with
the approval of new hospitals or medical centers which offer primary and urgent care treatment
for all types of injuries and traumas. Stipulations to ensure that the construction of the support
medical facilities is concurrent with hospitals or medical centers shall be determined at the time
of zoning approval. Support medical facilities are not allowed under this provision if the
hospital or medical center is a short-term leased facility due to the potential for relocation. "
is
The new square footages proposed within the PUD amendment are restricted to Health Services,
medical clinics and offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), Medical Laboratories, Research and
Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071-8092, 8099). To ensure the new square footage is restricted
to these uses, a provision has been added to the PUD within the Statement of Compliance,
section 2, which restricts all additional square footage approved will be medical related uses,
such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, medical treatment centers, medical research centers
and medical rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies. Therefore the additional square footage
requested within this PUD amendment shall all be authorized by the above FLUE Urban
Designation of support medical facilities within 1/4 mile of an existing hospital.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 7 of 30
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area.
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of the
total review of the petition. Regarding FLUE Policies 7.1-7.4, pertaining to access,
interconnections, open space, and walkable communities, no changes are proposed to PUD
access, interconnection or sidewalk provisions, and the PUD must comply with open space
requirements of the LDC.
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning stafffinds the proposed PUD
amendment consistent with the FLUE.
Economic Element (EE): Collier County's Growth Management Plan contains an Economic
Element, which sets forth policies and guidelines for consideration of economic matters in
relation to overall planning and growth management. The single Goal of the Element is,
"Collier County will achieve and maintain a diversified and stable economy by providing a
positive business climate that assures maximum employment opportunities while maintaining a
high quality of life."
Policy 1.2 of the Economic Element establishes that Collier County will, "support the
opportunity for development and establishment of hospitals, nursing homes and additional
medical related research and manufacturing facilities in order to promote a continuum of
care to enhance the quality of life throughout the County."
Objective 3 of the Economic Element indicates that Collier County will, "support programs
which are designed to promote and encourage the recruitment of new industry as well as the
expansion and retention of existing industries in order to diversify the County's economic
base. "
The proposed project with additional 198,000 square footage of dedicated medical and medical
research related square footage for the expansion of the existing Arthex facility at Creekside
Commerce Park will further the Goal of the Economic Element of the GMP and promote a
specific policy and Objective contained within the Element.
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUD
amendment consistent with the EE.
Transportation Element(TE): In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory
Reports(AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states,
"The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 8 of 30
not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway
segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment
that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a
roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is
projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year
AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A
petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that
any of the following occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic
is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is
equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point
where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant
and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's
significant impacts on all roadways. "
The proposed PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the then
applicable 2015 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the
proposed development will generate approximately 2,353 PM peak hour trips,with 384 PM peak
hour net new trips on the adjacent roadway links, as follows:
Roadway Link 2015 AUIR Current Peak 2015 Remaining
Existing LOS Hour Peak Capacity
Direction Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
Immokalee Road Tamiami Trail to C 3,100/West 1,082
(CR 846) Goodlette-Frank
Road(6 lane
divided)
Immokalee Road Goodlette-Frank D 3,100/East 702
(CR 846) to Airport Road
(6 lane divided)
Immokalee Road Airport Road to D 3,100/West 216
(CR 846) Livingston Road
(6 lane divided)
Goodlette-Frank Immokalee Road D 1,000/North 136
Road to Vanderbilt
Beach Road(2
lane undivided)
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 9 of 30
Airport Road Immokalee Road C 2,200/North 997
to Vanderbilt
Beach Road (4
lane divided)
Tamiami Trail Wiggins Pass D 3,100/North 534
North(US 41) Road to
Immokalee Road
(6 lane divided)
Tamiami Trail Immokalee Road C 3,100/North 1,021
North(US 41) to Vanderbilt
Beach Road(6
lane divided)
Based on the 2015 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate
the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore,the
subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan. Staff however notes that Table 6 of the TIS indicates that the
proposed development exceeds the peak directional, peak hour capacity on Immokalee Rd. (CR
846) between Airport Pulling and Livingston Road within the 5 year LOS projection. This road
segment has a capacity of 3,100 trips and the projected 2021 peak directional, peak hour with
this project is 3,244 trips. This project is located within the Northwest Transportation
Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) boundary and is therefore subject to Policy 5.6 of the
GMP. This policy requires any new development exceeding LOS levels within a TCMA
designated area must provide documentation that at least two Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies are provided/used. The specific TDM's for this development
shall be provided at time of Site Development Plan SDP or SDPA review.
The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the
Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of
first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate
turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply
with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals,
including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans,are sought.
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 roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The
project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the CPUD ordinance, which
includes provisions to address public safety. Additionally staff has included developer
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 10 of 30
commitments to specifically address additional operational concerns related to impacts resulting
from the proposed development.
Based upon the above analysis, Transportation Planning staff finds the proposed PUD
amendment consistent with the TE subject to the two additional developer commitments to be
added to Section 2.16 of the PUD as follows:
J. The owner, its successors, or assigns, shall construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk
within the Florida Power &Light (FPL) easement, subject to approval by FPL on
the west side of Creekside Street and the south side of Creekside Parkway
along/within folio # 29331193049 to connect to the existing sidewalk along
Creekside Parkway. The sidewalk is to be completed prior to the issuance of a •
Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed Arthrex Headquarters building
redevelopment on Tract 5 of the Master Plan or no later than one year following
FPL's concurrence.
K. Due to the removal of a portion of the Creekside Boulevard minor collector
roadway and re-routing of traffic, the owner, its successors, or assigns, shall
design and construct the re-routed roadway to adequately accommodate
AASHTO Interstate Semitrailer(WB-62) standards and provide access to existing
postal service truck traffic prior to the removal of a portion of Creekside
Boulevard. The design and construction shall be at no cost to Collier County.
Any additional right-of-way easements required by County for a public road •
pursuant to County standards shall be dedicated to the County, free and clear of
all liens and encumbrances without County maintenance responsibility. Such
dedication shall occur prior to the issuance of the certification of occupancy for
the proposed Arthrex Headquarters building redevelopment on Tract 5 of the
Master Plan and prior to the removal of a portion of Creekside Boulevard. The
owner, its successor, or assigns, shall also accept ownership of the entire length of
Creekside Boulevard with all maintenance responsibilities.
Note: Operational mitigation will be the subject of a companion developer agreement. The
proposed business points will be provided via a supplemental staff report memo.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff
found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element
(CCME). A deviation from the LDC provision for off-site retention of native vegetation has
been requested by the applicant. This LDC provision is also provided for in the CCME Policy
6.1.1 (10), a deviation from which is allowed pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13). The
applicable CCME Policy is provided below:
• CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10) The County shall adopt land development regulations that
allow for a process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all or
a portion of the native vegetation preservation retention requirement to be satisfied by a
monetary payment, land donation that contains native vegetative communities equal to or
of a higher priority as described in Policy 6.1.1 (4)than the land being impacted, or other
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 11 of 30
appropriate method of compensation to an acceptable land acquisition program, as
required by the land development regulations. The monetary payment shall be used to
purchase and manage native vegetative communities off-site. The land development
regulations shall provide criteria to determine when this alternative will be considered.
The criteria will be based upon the following provisions:
a. The amount,type, rarity, and quality of the native vegetation on site;
b. The presence of conservation lands adjoining the site;
c. The presence of listed species and consideration of Federal and State agency
technical assistance;
d. The type of land use proposed, such as,but not limited to, affordable housing;
e. The size of the preserve required to remain on site is too small to ensure that the
preserve can remain functional; and
f. Right of Way acquisitions for all purposes necessary for roadway construction,
including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right of
way acquisition area.
The land development regulations shall include a methodology to establish the monetary
value, land donation, or other appropriate method of compensation to ensure that native
vegetative communities not preserved on-site will be preserved and appropriately
managed off-site.
• CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13) The County may grant a deviation to the native vegetation
retention requirements of sub-sections 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 of this Policy, and shall adopt
land development regulations to set forth the process for obtaining a deviation. The
regulations shall allow for the granting of a deviation by the appropriate review board
after a public hearing, and for the granting of a deviation administratively. The County
shall consider the amount and type of native vegetation and the presence of listed species
in determining whether the granting of a deviation requires a public hearing, or may be
granted administratively.
The County may grant a deviation if:
a. County, Federal, or State agencies require that site improvements be located in
areas which result in an inability to meet the provisions of this Policy, or
b. On or off-site environmental conditions are such that the application of one or
more provisions of this Policy is not possible or will result in a preserve area of
lesser quality, or
c. The strict adherence to these provisions will not allow for the implementation of
other Plan policies that encourage beneficial land uses.
• GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), which allows for deviations from the GMP provisions
identified in Policy 6.1.1 (13) was adopted by Ord. 07-16 on 1-25-07, based upon the
2004 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Beneficial land uses are not defined in the GMP
or LDC; it is at the discretion of the BCC to determine beneficial land uses. A specific
use has not been provided for the impact of 2 acres of platted Preserve#3 existing onsite.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPDD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 12 of 30
ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon
which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Collier County Land Development
Code (LDC) subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly
referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of
Planning Commission Report(referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis
to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their
recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning
request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading
"Zoning Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document to address environmental concerns. The property owner is requesting to allow 2 acres
of existing preserve to be impacted, which requires a deviation. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter
2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
the project requires review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since a deviation to
environmental standards of the LDC has been requested. Revised Environmental Data
(Environmental Supplement September 2016) was received after environmental portions of the
staff report were written. Acreages and information may not be consistent between the staff
report and environmental supplement.
Approximately 7.53 acres of preserve have been platted within the PUD. Per the Creekside
Commerce Park CPUD, preserve requirements were determined to include 4.1 acres of uplands
and 2.9 acres of wetlands for a total of 7 acres of County required preserve as shown on the
existing PUD Master Plan. Pursuant to the LDC and GMP, fifteen percent(7 acres) of the native
vegetation is required to be retained for the PUD as originally set aside with the PUD. The
request to impact 2 acres of preserve to allow for expansion of one of the commercial parcels and
reconfiguration of the stormwater management system will result in a reduction of approximately
2 acres of the minimum required preserve onsite. The native vegetation acreages are as follows:
PUD Required Preserves 7 ac
Existing Platted Preserves 7.53 ac
Proposing Impact to onsite Preserves 2 ac
Proposed PUD Amendment provides:
Onsite Preserve 5.65 ac(includes 0.68 created preserve)
Off-site Preserve 1.35 ac
Total PUD required 7 ac
Preserve acreages from Plat OR BK 29,PG 57-58;OR BK 35,PG 43-44;OR BK 54,PG 84-
86.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 13 of 30
Existing Preserves 1, 2, 3, 4
Four preserves are platted within the Creekside PUD,two on each side of Goodlette-Frank Road.
See "Existing Native Habitat Map" and the "Proposed Native Habitat Map" for reference within
the Environmental Supplement. The location of these preserves is shown on the PUD master
plan and the exhibit below. For discussion purposes, staff has created the exhibit below which
has assigned a number to each preserve starting at the furthest preserve on the west side of
Goodlette-Frank Road:
1. Furthest west is a 0.81 acre preserve containing a willow marsh transitioning to a laurel
oak forest.
2. West of Goodlette-Frank Road is a 1.68acre preserve containing a highly disturbed
remnant cabbage palm/hardwood forest which appears to not have been re-vegetated with
native species when exotic vegetation(Brazilian pepper) was removed. Much of the area
within the former cabbage palm/hardwood forest consists solely of exotic vegetation
interspersed with areas of bare ground covered with weeds. This area is proposed to be
expanded with the addition of 0.68 with this PUD amendment.
3. East of Goodlette-Frank Road is the 3.52 acre oak pine woodland/wetland forest preserve
proposed to be impacted as part of the PUD amendment. A vegetation inventory for the
oak pine woodland/wetland forest preserve is included in the environmental data for the
project and consists of a mature forest free of exotic vegetation.
4. Furthest east is a 1.52 acre preserve consisting of pine flatwoods along the eastern edge
of the PUD.
The preserves on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road represent the highest quality native
habitats on site.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 14 of 30
Creekside Commerce Park CPU D Existing Preserves
Immokalee RD „ t♦7s„. -'-- —— ..
..-.''.... I it tr,r4 il,‘ . 1 ergillnii ,i 1,
as
e §.
If1 ; II ,,: I . -i -11 tii?* is , 1 ---.- — .
it r ax 1 '. � _.._ �
Y ' 4 t 1. . t —
11‘
1,--:17,444
1 s a, 6 \ i . ....,
....,.... Q IR Off Fill I E i ii 1 1' • E ! t 4r,Sik ra..
''''P''m""'"'"'"lms"--""'„ '\, ..-,
Ll o Preserve#1-0.81 acres ( W
Legend o Preserve#2-1.88 acres 1
�Edsthp Presenes o Preserve#3.3.52 acres , ! ”.N - �� ,fil
t, . I �e
1 Cneltside Comme ce PaN CPUD 0 Preserve#41.52 acres
0 100 200 400 600M�rY
t
� Feet u��eoWe � �.., �_Js rtr
•«." :"�,.. I me ptrverw.w nrp Vfat MP g" 1 t
Pictures of Preserves
Below are pictures of the area proposed for expansion (Preserve #2) and impacts (Preserve #3)
and staffs recommended area for impact (Preserve #2) as discussed in the Recommendation
section on page 18 of this staff report.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 15 of 30
Preserve #2 (see pictures below): This preserve consists mostly of exotic vegetation
interspersed with areas of bare ground covered with weeds. Woman's Tongue(Albizia Lebbeck)
is prevalent throughout many portions of the preserve. The northern portion has some cabbage
palms with a weedy understory.
t fj r 'f
. "�0,((,
t*
i1i 4.
View of the preserve from Goodlette-Frank Looking from the west into the preserve —
Road with a canopy of the invasive prohibited weedy invasive plants, including Woman's
exotic tree, Woman's Tongue (Albizia Tongue.
lebbeck).
.„, , ,„,, . i
.a 4.' 404 f 1 Vi 1 , f p""• _ ,•'',
i.
ii ': ),,,,, , ;
k
•
View looking from the west into the preserve View looking north at the canopy of Woman's
— area devoid of native vegetation with bare Tongue.
ground and weedy invasive plants.
Preserve #3: A full explanation of this native habitat is detailed in the Environmental
Supplement provided by Turrell, Hall & Associates. These areas contain Pine Flatwoods, Oak
Pine community, and Wetland Forested area all with little to no exotics (see report
Environmental Supplement).
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPDD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 16 of 30
Preserve#3 see s ictures below)
,r► -
•
4, .1.).A . ..% 14. r . '4601 ,;*• 1 ' .01.....„t, „„ N--:-
4 •
i i 4 ii , �i ,
`.,� Ill $, yi. ,' �, ik e!• 'i�:�, .0 {+
,mss. e.r '
View from sidewalk on Creekside Blvd E View from the north of Preserve #3 looking
looking east—Oak Pine community. south from the berm.
.
P bill*.
�rr
i .c Lt, . a°
Or 4 t4 r T a'4,, 0. 44.0w.'
1
'
View from sidewalk on Creekside Blvd E View from the northeast of Preserve#3
looking south—Oak Pine community. looking southwest from the berm
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 17 of 30
Nc
Panoramic picture—view from the north of Preserve#3 looking south from the berm. From left to
right(east to west)the following are shown: south part of preserve#4, lake, preserve#3.
Stormwater Conveyance
Preserve #1 & #3 are connected to the stormwater management system. In addition to being
platted as a preserve, Preserve #3 which is proposed to be impacted by 2 acres as part of the PUD
amendment has a recorded drainage easement over much of it(OR Book 3117, Pages 3123-3135).
Current standards would not allow for stormwater within a preserve unless the preserve meets the
LDC criteria to allow stormwater in a preserve. This drainage easement in the preserve is to
Collier County. According to the Stormwater Section Manager,this easement is for drainage of the
basin for portions of Victoria Park, not Goodlette-Frank Road. Even though current standards
would not allow stormwater in a preserve, this was previously permitted under previous
regulations and therefore is allowed as non-conforming per LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.h.ii.j.
Recommendation
A review of existing preserves within the PUD and the off-site native vegetation retention
provisions of the LDC show the highly disturbed remnant cabbage palm/hardwood forest within
existing Preserve #2 (west side of Goodlette-Frank Road) to already meet the provisions for off-
site retention of native vegetation without the need for a deviation; staff recommends that any
impacts to existing preserves for the PUD be limited to this preserve. The applicable LDC sections
are provided below:
LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f. Off-site vegetation retention.
i. Applicability. A property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier
County on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied
offsite for only the following situations and subject to restrictions listed below.
f) Existing or proposed preserves with 75 percent or more coverage with
exotic vegetation. Existing preserves not previously overrun with this type
vegetation and which arrive at this state due to lack of management of the
preserve shall mitigate off site at a ratio of 2 to 1.
g) Created preserves which do not meet the success criteria in 3.05.07
H.1.e.viii or where preserves have not been planted in a manner which
mimics a natural plant community.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 18 of 30
Stipulation: The off-site preserve location is not being proposed as part of this petition and has not
been reviewed or approved by staff. The East Gateway petition was approved with a stipulation
by the BCC; staff recommends the same stipulation be included in the PUD document:
The 1.35 acre off-site preserve shall not be used for mitigation to other agencies including,
but not limited to the SFWMD or Army Corps of Engineers. An off-site preserve shall be
provided in accordance with the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of the first Site
Development Plan or subdivision plat approval.
Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan and is recommending approval subject to the stipulations in staffs
recommendations section of this report and the PUD document developer commitment section.
Utility Review: The Public Utilities Department staff has reviewed this petition and the PUD is
located within the CCWSD (Collier County Water and Sewer District). Adequate capacity is
currently available for water and wastewater services. However, a supplemental County Utility
Easement (CUE) is needed to construct an irrigation quality (IQ) main along the eastern segment
of Creekside Boulevard from Goodlette-Frank Road to Creekside Street and along Creekside
Street, terminating at Immokalee Rd. The segment of the CUE between Creekside Parkway and
Immokalee Road must be at least 15 feet wide. This width may be reduced along the rights-of-way
with CUE overlay depending on the final alignment of the IQ main. Therefore, staff is
recommending approval subject to the following stipulation:
• A 15 foot wide CUE shall be provided at the time of or before the applicable development
order and at a mutually agreed location deemed acceptable by Collier County.
Zoning Services Section Analysis: Relationship to Existing and Future Land Uses: A discussion of
this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning,
refers to the relationship of the uses that would be permitted if the proposed zoning action is
approved,as it relates to the requirement or limitations set forth in the FLUE of the GMP.
The proposed additional square footage is restricted to health services, medical clinics and offices
(Groups 8011-8049, 8052), Medical Laboratories, research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups
8071-8092, 8099). To ensure the new square footage is restricted to these uses, a provision has
been added to the PUD within the Statement of Compliance, section 2, which restricts all
additional approved square footage to Support medical facilities — such as physicians' offices,
medical clinics, medical treatment centers, medical research centers and medical rehabilitative
centers, and pharmacies. Therefore the additional square footage requested within this PUD
amendment shall all be authorized by the above FLUE Urban Designation of support medical
facilities within 1/4 mile of an existing hospital. Zoning staff finds the proposed additional square
footage that are allocated to health services, medical clinics/offices and medical laboratories and
research and rehabilitative centers to be compatible with the existing neighborhood commercial,
industrial, and institutional land uses and intensities.
The petitioner also proposes to increase maximum "Zoned" building height for parcels west of
Goodlette-Frank Road from 35 feet to 50 feet. However, facilities located on Tract 5 shall have a
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 19 of 30
maximum zoned height of 185 feet and an actual height of 205 feet. In addition, the petitioner
proposed to increase allowable building height for Business Tract 9 from a zoned height of 50 feet
and an actual height of 60 feet to a zoned height of 75 feet and an actual height of 85 feet. Because
the GMP and the LDC doesn't provide a maximum building height, a GMP and/or LDC •
amendment is not required.
In addition, it is the applicant's contention that additional square footage and building height,
while creating a more intense development, are off-set by the architectural design of the 205-foot
tall building and its location internal to the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundaries. Given the
project's proximity to the Mixed-Use Activity Center Sub-district, staff notes that these locations
are intended to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning where traffic impacts and intense
development can readily be accommodated. It is also anticipated that these locations will
accommodate tall commercial office buildings. Even though there are no developments that have
been approved with a similar maximum building height, the proposed 205-foot tall office building
is approximately 1,000 feet away from developed residential subdivisions.
The line-of-site renderings prepared by the applicant show that much of the lower portions of the
proposed 205-foot tall building will be obscured by the existing vegetation and other existing
structures. However, the upper portions of this structure will be visible from the nearby residential
developments in Pelican Marsh and Collier's Reserve.
REZONE FINDINGS:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the •
following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires
the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the
additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings
are designated as PUD. (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies
and future land use map and the elements of the GMP.
Staff in the Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD amendment
is consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan(GMP).
2. The existing land use pattern.
As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the neighborhood's
existing land use pattern can be characterized as mixed-use with residential, commercial, industrial,
and institutional lands,
is
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 20 of 30
At the time the subject property was rezoned to a CPUD, it was deemed to be of sufficient size that it
did not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD
amendment doesn't change this finding.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the
LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to change the areas of the
Industrial Commercial District and Business District to increase the square footage for medical
industrial research and development and medical and general office, which are targeted industry
groups in Collier County. This amendment also includes increases to the maximum building
heights as noted above.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The proposed change will add 166,000 square feet to the I/C District and 32,000 square feet to the
B District which will result in additional traffic on the adjacent road network. Staff's analysis
indicates that there is sufficient capacity on the County's collector and arterial road network to
accommodate the traffic resulting from the proposed increase in floor area.
The proposed increase in the maximum building height is greater than the approved maximum
heights for the surrounding developments which are as follows:
• Collier Tract 22 PUD (Collier's Reserve)permits a maximum height of 8-Stories or 80 feet,
whichever is greater;
• Collier Health Center PUD (North Collier Hospital)permits a maximum height of 5-Stories
and shall not exceed 80 feet, (Zone B/Phase IV) shall not exceed 100 feet — All other
structures shall not exceed 100 feet,
• Collier County Utilities Division Water Plant(Zoned Industrial)permits a maximum zoned
Height of 50 feet;
• Southwest Professional Health Park PUD permits a maximum zoned height of 45 feet;
• Pelican Marsh PUD/DRI permits a maximum zoned height of 50 feet for the multi family
Tract, 80 feet for the Cultural Center Tract,100 feet for the Commercial Tract;and
• Naples Daily News BPUD permits a maximum zoned height of 75 feet for Parcel A.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPDD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 21 of 30
The applicant contends that additional square footage and building height, while creating a more
intense development, are off-set by the architectural design of the building and location internal to
the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundaries. The line-of-site renderings prepared by the
applicant show that much of the lower portions of the proposed 205-foot tall building being
obscured by the existing vegetation and other existing structures. However, the upper portions of
this structure will be visible from the nearby residential developments in Pelican Marsh and
Collier's Reserve, and staff is unable to ascertain if the proposed building height will adversely
influence living conditions in the surrounding neighborhoods. Although, the applicant has stated
that the County doesn't have a maximum height limit and has approved other tall buildings near
residential subdivisions.
Based upon the above findings, staff is of the opinion that the proposed change should not
adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood.
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 roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The
project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the CPUD ordinance, which
includes provisions to address public safety.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore,the project is subject
to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the
applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The increased
zoned and actual building heights as described in the application should not seriously reduce light
and air to adjacent areas.
is
10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area.
Staff is of the opinion this PUD amendment will not adversely impact property values. However,
staff is unable to ascertain if the proposed building height will adversely influence property values
in the surrounding neighborhoods.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 22 of 30
Properties around this property are already mostly developed. 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. Therefore, the proposed PUD amendment should 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 contrasted with the public welfare.
The GMP constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent
with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a
grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare
relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The subject property can be developed within existing zoning but would not accommodate the
proposed expansion.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD amendment is not out of scale with the needs of the
neighborhood or county. However, it should be noted that the proposed 205-foot tall office
building will be visible from the nearby residential developments in Pelican Marsh and Collier's
Reserve. The residents from these communities that attended the Neighborhood Information
Meeting expressed concern or objected to the increase in building height as being out of scale with
the needs of the neighborhood or the County.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is
not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. This petition
was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and that it represents an
expansion of an existing use on the subject property.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these sites
will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the
building permit process.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 23 of 30
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 GMP and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance.
The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate
Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of
the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff that
is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff
has concluded that the proposed transportation impacts are increased and are consistent with the
FLUE of the GMP.
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.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
PUD FINDINGS:
LDC subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning
Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following
criteria:"
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation
to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas,traffic and access,drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
The Creekside Commerce Park is an established business park which has been developed with a
variety of light industrial, commercial, and office uses. The proposed commercial and industrial
uses are compatible with the existing development within the subject PUD. The project would
also be required to comply with County regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water, and other
utilities. Therefore,the site is suitable for the proposed 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.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office,
demonstrate unified control of the property.
The development will be required to gain platting and/or site development plan approval. These
processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and
maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the GMP.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 24 of 30
Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and
policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on staff analyses, staff
is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The currently approved development, landscaping, and buffering standards were determined to be
compatible with the adjacent uses and with the use mixture within the project itself when the PUD
was approved. However, the proposed 205-foot tall (actual height) office building will be visible
from the nearby residential developments such as in Pelican Marsh and Collier's Reserve. Some
residents from these communities have objected to the increase in building height as being out of
scale with the needs of the neighborhood and thereby not a compatible building height. Even
though the applicant contends that the compatibility of the proposed building height is subjective,
they have located the proposed 205-foot tall office building to be located within the Arthrex
campus site on Tract 5, as depicted on the master plan, which is buffered from the external
residential developments by the existing vegetation and other existing commercial/industrial
buildings. In addition, the applicant contends that the architectural design and orientation/massing
is intended lessen the visual impact from the nearby residential communities. Staff concurs that the
restrictions and limitations noted above should improve the internal and external compatibility of
the proposed amendment. Because Collier County doesn't have a maximum height limitation, the
proposed 205-foot tall office building is not inconsistent with any regulation in the GMP or LDC.
S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The existing open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. •
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities,both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the
Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first
development order(SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning
movements for all site access points. Finally,the project's development must comply with all
other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but
not limited to any plans and plat or site development plan, are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
If "ability" implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water
supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, then the subject
property does have the ability to support the proposed expansion.
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 25 of 30
it
8. 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.
The petitioner is seeking to replace a minor project sign at Creekside Boulevard and Goodlette-
Frank Road with major project sign as provided for in PUD Section 2.20.B. In addition, the
requested deviations (see below) must comply with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit
Development Districts as listed in LDC Section 2.03.06A. This criterion requires an evaluation of
the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from
development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district.
Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more detailed
description.
Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking two new deviations as noted below.
Deviation#1: Approved Ordinance 13-23
Deviation#2: Approved Ordinance 16-05
New Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i(a), Preservation Standards, a
property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site native vegetation
preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for properties zoned commercial where the
on-site preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size to allow offsite preservation where the on-
site preserve requirement is more than 2 acres and where the off-site preserve proposed is less than
2 acres, to permit an off-site preserve area of 1.35± acres. The area impacted by the expansion of
the `B' District is located in the area east of Goodlette-Frank Road.
Petitioner's Rationale: The Creekside Commerce Park is a business park located in the highly
urbanized area of Collier County. Demand for business services and light industrial space in close
proximity to the Naples Community Hospital and transportation corridors including US. 41 and I-
75. The proposed modification to the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan impacts an
approximately 2± acre area which contains native upland and wetland vegetation. The Creekside
Commerce Park was previously approved and required to preserve 71 acres. The proposed Master
Plan reduces the on-site preserves to 5.651 acres, which will include a small re-created upland of
0.68±acres. The applicant has reviewed the proposed change with state regulatory agencies and
they have offered no initial concern with the revisions to the preserve area. The revision to the
preserve area will permit the expansion of the Business Tract and provide for a sufficient size to
accommodate the increased square footage sought as part of this PUD amendment. The small
existing preserve area is not connected to any flowway nor does it provide habitat for listed
species. The applicant can provide off-site mitigation for the 1.35±acres of native vegetation in an
area where it would be connected to a larger more contiguous area of native vegetation;providing
a greater benefit to the community and environment.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: For commercial properties, a property owner may request that
all or a portion of the onsite preserve requirement be satisfied off-site if the total on-site preserve
requirement is less than two acres (LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f). A deviation from this LDC
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 26 of 30
provision is required because the total on-site preserve requirement for the PUD is 7 acres, 5 acres
greater than the threshold standard of 2 acres. The applicant is requesting that 1.35 acres be
preserved off-site, leaving 5.65 acres on-site that includes 0.68 acres of preserve to be created
onsite adjacent to the existing heavily disturbed upland Preserve #2 located west of Goodlette-
Frank Road. In total, 2 acres of preserve are proposed to be impacted on site and the preserve
proposed to be impacted,representing the highest quality native habitat on site.
Previous requests for other projects/properties, for deviations from the criteria in the LDC for off-
site retention of native vegetation have occurred through the PUD rezone and GMP amendment
process and have mainly been for sites/preserves heavily impacted with exotic vegetation with no
adjoining off-site preserves or undeveloped areas. As these previous projects included minimal
off-site acreage requests and/or the onsite native vegetation areas were significantly impacted by
exotic vegetation, staff supported the deviation requests. The preserve proposed for impact within
Creekside PUD contains a mature forest not impacted with exotic vegetation and represents the
highest quality native habitat within the PUD. The preserve to be impacted also contains a diverse
assemblage of native vegetation including freshwater swamp, oak pine and xeric oak pine forests.
The xeric scrub oak pine habitat, of which, is becoming increasingly rare in Collier County.
Off-site retention of preserves to impact the highest quality native habitat on site does not meet the
intent of CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10) and criteria in the LDC for off-site retention of preserves. Both
xeric scrub and hardwood habitats are also either supported or required by the preserve selection
and off-site preserve provisions of the GMP and LDC to be retained on-site. These provisions
include CCME Policy 6.1.1 (4 & 10) and LDC sections 3.05.07 A.4 and 3.05.07 H.lIli. The area
proposed for impact is currently a government required preserve to Collier County. Specifically,
3.05.07.H.l.f.ii.b. states:
Preserves shall remain on-site if located contiguous to natural flowways required to be
retained per the requirements of the SFWMD, natural water bodies, estuaries, government
required preserves (not meeting the off-site preservation criteria herein), NRPAs, or
contiguous to property designated for purchase by Conservation Collier or purchased by
Conservation Collier, or contiguous to properties containing listed species nests, buffers,
corridors and foraging habitat per the requirements or recommendations of the FFWCC or
USFWS
The preserve proposed for impact is an existing government required preserve. Therefore, the
existing preserve proposed for impact is contiguous to a government required preserve. On-site
preserves are beneficial land uses valued by the community and staff recommends not amending
the PUD to allow for a reduction of the preserve containing the highest quality native habitat. A
review of existing preserves within the PUD and the off-site native vegetation retention provisions •
of the LDC show the highly disturbed remnant cabbage palm/hardwood forest within existing
Preserve #2 (west side of Goodlette-Frank Road) to already meet the provisions for off-site
retention of native vegetation without the need for a deviation. Staff recommends that any 1
reduction in preserve acreage for the PUD be limited to this preserve,
New Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC section 5.05.08.F.4.a. VI. (b) that exempts multi-story
buildings with a total gross building area of 20,000 square feet or more from qualifying for the
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 27 of 30
administrative architectural deviation process and compliance with Section 5.05.08 of the LDC for
specific types of buildings, to allow general office and medical office that can be constructed on
Tract 5 of the Master Plan to be eligible for this deviation process.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant indicates that all I/C office building shall meet the
requirements of Section 5.05.08 of the LDC, except for buildings located on Tract 5 will be eligible
for the County's architectural deviation process. This Tract is proposed to be redeveloped with a
multi-story office building with supporting covered parking structure. Because of the structural
and architectural features typically associated with a multi-story office building, certain
architectural design requirements of Section 5.05.08 may need to be in the form of alternative
design elements. Further, the LDC requires all sides of a standalone building within a PUD to be
considered primary facades, and compliance on all four sides of the building to provide elements
such as covered entries,porte-cochere is not practical. The applicant is proposing to construct a
medical related multi-story office building and associated parking on the subject parcel, and to
insure compliance to the greatest extent possible with the intent of the architectural and site design
standards, the applicant proposes to address the architectural review through the deviation and
alternate compliance process that has been established for other types of buildings.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. The architectural review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that,
the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on
the health, safety and welfare of the community."
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM):
The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on August 30,2016. For further
information,please see Attachment: "F"Transcripts of the Neighborhood Information Meeting.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on September 7,
2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission
forward Petition PUDR-PL20160001865, Creekside Commerce Park PUD to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations:
1. A 15 foot wide CUE shall be provided at the time of or before the applicable development
order and at a mutually agreed location deemed acceptable by Collier County.
2. Deny the proposed Deviation #3 for the off-site retention of the required preserve area.
However, should the CCPC staff recommend approval of this deviation, then staff
recommends the following:
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 28 of 30
Any reductions in on-site preserves within the PUD be limited to Preserve #2 instead of the
requested impact to Preserve #3 and that the PUD document and PUD master plan be
amended accordingly.
3. Revise PUD Section 2.16 to add two additional Transportation Developer Commitments as
follows:
J. The owner, its successors, or assigns, shall construct a 5 foot wide sidewalk within
the Florida Power& Light(FPL) easement, subject to approval by FPL on the west
side of Creekside Street and the south side of Creekside Parkway along/within folio
# 29331193049 to connect to the existing sidewalk along Creekside Parkway. The
sidewalk is to be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the proposed Arthrex Headquarters building redevelopment on Tract 5 of the
Master Plan or no later than one year following FPL's concurrence.
K. Due to the removal of a portion of the Creekside Boulevard minor collector
roadway and re-routing of traffic, the owner, its successors, or assigns, shall design
and construct the re-routed roadway to adequately accommodate AASHTO
Interstate Semitrailer (WB-62) standards and provide access to existing postal
service truck traffic prior to the removal of a portion of Creekside Boulevard. The
design and construction shall be at no cost to Collier County. Any additional right-
of-way easements required by County for a public road pursuant to County
standards shall be dedicated to the County, free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances without County maintenance responsibility. Such dedication shall
occur prior to the issuance of the certification of occupancy for the proposed
Arthrex Headquarters building redevelopment on Tract 5 of the Master Plan and
prior to the removal of a portion of Creekside Boulevard. The owner, its successor,
or assigns, shall also accept ownership of the entire length of Creekside Boulevard
with all maintenance responsibilities.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance
Attachment B: Application with Environmental Supplement
Attachment C: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review Memo
Attachment D: Economic Element Consistency Review Memo
Attachment E: Traffic Impact Study(TIS)
Attachment F: Transcripts of the Neighborhood Information Meeting
Attachment G: Letters/Correspondence of Objection
Tentatively scheduled for the October 25, 2016 BCC Meeting
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Page 29 of 30
PREPARED BY:
/2 4iftervi 7 6 /6
RAYMO 4f V. BELLO S, ZON G MANAGER ATE
ZONING I IVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION
REVIEWED BY:
q_)- ft
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
PLANNING&ZONING DIVISION
APPROVED BY:
7- ?-
ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
AVI
S. WILKISON, P.E. DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001665
September 6,2016
Page 30 of 30
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED FOR
BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment August 31, 2016
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK
A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
106± Acres Located in Section 27
Township 48 South, Range 25 East
Collier County, Florida
PREPARED FOR:
BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP
2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105
PREPARED BY:
WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC.
3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34105
YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A.
801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34101
AMENDED DECEMBER 2005 BY:
Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134
ROETZEL AND ANDRESS, L.P.A.
850 Park Shore Drive, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida 34103
AMENDED MAY 2012 BY:
Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134
COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A.
Northern Trust Bank Building
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103
AMENDED AUGUST 2015 and JULY 2016 BY:
Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134
COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A.
Northern Trust Bank Building
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment i August 31, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE ii
SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, & 1-1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
SECTION II COMMERCE PARK DEVELOPMENT 2-1
2.1 Purpose
2.2 General Description Of The Park and Proposed Land Uses
2.3 Compliance With County Ordinances
2.4 Community Development District
2.5 Land Uses
2.6 Lake Siting
2.7 Fill Storage
2.8 Use Of Right-Of-Way
2.9 Sales Office and Construction Office
2.10 Changes and Amendments To PUD Document Or PUD Master Plan
2.11 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Phasing
2.12 Open Space and Native Vegetation Retention Requirements
2.13 Surface Water Management
2.14 Environmental
2.15 Utilities
2.16 Transportation
2.17 Common Area Maintenance
2.18 Design Guidelines and Standards
2.19 Landscape Buffers, Berms, Fences and Walls
2.20 Signage
2.21 General Permitted Uses
SECTION III INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE DISTRICT 3-1
SECTION IV BUSINESS DISTRICT 4-1
SECTION V PRESERVE AREA 5-1
EXHIBIT A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, LOCATION MAP
(WMB&P File No. RZ-255A)
EXHIBIT B CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT B-1 CROSS SECTIONS (ENLARGED)
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment ii August 31, 2016
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The purpose of this section is to express the intent of the Barron Collier Partnership, hereinafter
referred to as Barron Collier or the Developer, to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 106±
acres of land located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The
name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Creekside Commerce Park. The development of
Creekside Commerce Park will be in substantial compliance with the planning goals and objectives of
Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with
the policies and land development regulations adopted thereunder of the Growth Management Plan
Future Land Use Element and other applicable regulations for the following reasons:
1. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use District as identified on the Future Land
Use Map which allows certain industrial and commercial uses. The Urban designation also
allows support medical facilities, offices, clinics, treatment, research and rehabilitative centers
and pharmacies provided they are located within 1/4 mile of the property boundary of an
existing or approved hospital or medical center. The Creekside Commerce Park PUD is
located within ¼ mile of the North Collier Hospital. The request is to add 166,000 square feet
to the I/C District and 34,000 square feet to the B District. All additional square footage
approved in the October 2016 Ordinance amendment will be medical related uses, and will be
on Tracts that are within or partially within ¼ mile of the North Collier Hospital property.
2. The existing Industrial zoning is considered consistent with the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) as provided for by Policy 5.9 and 5.11 of the FLUE.
3. The FLUE Urban-Industrial District allows for expansion of the industrial land use provided
the rezone is in the form of a PUD, the site is adjacent to existing land designated or zoned
industrial the land use is compatible with adjacent land uses and the necessary infrastructure is
provided or in place. Creekside Commerce Park has expanded the industrial land use
accordingly.
4. The FLUE Urban-Industrial District requires the uses along the boundaries of the project to be
transitional. Creekside Commerce Park has included transitional uses accordingly.
5. Creekside Commerce Park is compatible with and complementary to existing and future
surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE.
6. Improvements are planned to be in substantial compliance with applicable land development
regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE.
7. The development of Creekside Commerce Park will result in an efficient and economical
extension of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.H and L of the FLUE.
8. Creekside Commerce Park is a master planned, deed-restricted commerce park and is planned
to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination as set forth in the Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC), Planned Unit Development District.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment iii August 31, 2016
9. This master planned park will incorporate elements from the existing Industrial, Business Park
and Industrial PUD sections of the LDC.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment iv August 31, 2016
SHORT TITLE
This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE".
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 1-1 August 31, 2016
SECTION I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of
Creekside Commerce Park, and to describe the existing condition of the property
proposed to be developed.
1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
being more particularly described as follows;
COMMENCING at the northwest corner of said Section 27;
thence along the north line of said Section 27 South 89°45’21” East 1869.61 feet;
thence leaving said line South 00°14’39” West 125.00 feet to a point on the south right of
way line of Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel
herein described;
thence along said right of way line in the following Six (6) described courses;
1) South 89°45’21” East 485.99 feet;
2) South 00°14’39” West 10.00 feet;
3) South 89°45’21” East 150.19 feet;
4) South 89°48’33” East 716.81 feet;
5) North 05°34’33” West 10.05 feet;
6) South 89°48’33” East 486.21 feet to a point on the west right of way line of Goodlette
Road as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 58, Public Records of Collier County, Florida;
thence along said line South 05°33’48” East 1767.02 feet;
thence leaving said line South 89°20’53” West 51.18 feet;
thence North 23°55’53” West 13.07 feet;
thence northwesterly, 30.71 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the
northeast, having a radius of 80.00 feet, through a central angle of 21°59’52” and being
subtended by a chord which bears North 12°55’57” West 30.53 feet;
thence North 05°00’53” West 31.56 feet;
thence North 36°19’20” West 32.02 feet;
thence North 56°04’35” West 35.11 feet;
thence North 80°39’15” West 32.53 feet;
thence North 88°39’12” West 97.78 feet;
thence North 86°04’40” West 45.79 feet;
thence North 89°49’48” West 132.77 feet;
thence North 69°40’10” West 37.23 feet;
thence South 89°20’53” West 142.47 feet;
thence South 84°59’26” West 24.66 feet;
thence South 74°56’50” West 121.32 feet;
thence South 79°49’59” West 45.93 feet;
thence westerly and northwesterly, 45.51 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the northeast, having a radius of 66.00 feet, through a central angle of 39°30’16” and
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 1-2 August 31, 2016
being subtended by a chord which bears North 80°24’53” West 44.61 feet to a point of
compound curvature;
thence northwesterly, 52.92 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the
southwest, having a radius of 150.00 feet, through a central angle of 20°12’57” and being
subtended by a chord which bears North 70°46’13” West 52.65 feet;
thence North 80°52’42” West 36.59 feet;
thence westerly and southwesterly, 46.18 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the southeast, having a radius of 80.00 feet, through a central angle of 33°04’14” and
being subtended by a chord which bears South 82°35’11” West 45.54 feet to a point of
compound curvature;
thence southwesterly and westerly, 38.16 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the northwest, having a radius of 60.00 feet, through a central angle of 36°26’19” and
being subtended by a chord which bears South 84°16’14” West 37.52 feet to a point of
compound curvature;
thence westerly and northwesterly, 68.85 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the southwest, having a radius of 305.00 feet, through a central angle of 12°55’59” and
being subtended by a chord which bears North 83°58’36” West 68.70 feet;
thence South 89°33’25” West 18.36 feet;
thence South 89°39’19” West 71.63 feet;
thence North 89°34’56” West 36.03 feet;
thence South 86°06’41” West 42.94 feet;
thence South 83°44’16” West 26.23 feet;
thence South 51°01’13” West 27.49 feet;
thence South 33°25’50” West 19.95 feet;
thence South 15°40’05” West 20.54 feet;
thence South 10°54’39” West 34.64 feet;
thence South 89°20’14” West 101.06 feet;
thence North 10°46’06” East 101.42 feet;
thence North 89°20’53” East 65.45 feet;
thence North 00°39’07” West 100.64 feet;
thence South 89°20’53” West 503.78 feet;
thence North 00°39’07” West 27.71 feet;
thence North 72°58’55” West 131.30 feet;
thence North 02°08’56” West 1473.29 feet to a point on the south right of way line of
said Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein
described;
Containing 69.48 acres more or less;
Subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Bearings are assumed and based on the north line of said Section 27 being South
89°49'40" East.
All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
being more particularly described as follows;
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 27;
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 1-3 August 31, 2016
thence along the east line of said Section 27, South 01°09’43” East 125.00 feet to a point
on the south right of way line of Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF
BEGINNING of the parcel herein described;
thence continue along said east line South 01°09’43” East 1189.62 feet;
thence leaving said line South 89°48’50” West 677.35 feet;
thence South 05°35’39” East 886.02 feet;
thence South 89°48’50” West 400.00 feet to a point on the easterly right of way line of
Goodlette Frank Road as Recorded in Plat Book 13, page 58, Public records of Collier
County, Florida;
thence along said line North 05°35’39” West 2088.10 feet to a point of the south right of
way line of said Immokalee Road (S.R. 846);
thence along said line South 89°49’40” East 1168.55 feet;
thence continue along said line South 89°12’58” East 1.85 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING of the parcel herein described;
Containing 38.9 acres more or less;
Subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Bearings are assumed and based on the north line of said Section 27 being South
89°46'26" East.
LESS
A PORTION OF TRACTS “R” AND “L1” CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST-UNIT
ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 AT PAGES 57 THROUGH 58 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHWESTERLYMOST CORNER OF TRACT “R” (CREEKSIDE WAY)
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST-UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29
AT PAGES 57 THROUGH 58 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°45'00" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT -OF-WAY
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD FOR A DISTANCE OF 249.45 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH
00°25'51" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 107.22 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 60°02'56"
EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.20 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 82°32'14" EAST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 119.17 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF TRACT “L1” OF SAID
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST-UNIT ONE, ALSO BEING THE WES LINE OF
LOT 3 OF SAID CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST-UNIT ONE; THENCE RUN
SOUTH 00°07'39" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 111.93 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID TRACT “R”; THENCE RUN
NORTH 89°58'01" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF
456.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID TRACT “R”;
THENCE RUN NORTH 02°19'57" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT -OF-WAY FOR A
DISTANCE OF 294.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 2.32
ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 1-4 August 31, 2016
1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The subject property is currently under the equitable ownership or control of Barron
Collier Partnership, or its assigns, whose address is 2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples,
FL 34105.
1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
A. The project site is located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and is
generally bordered on the west by Agriculturally zoned and developed property; on
the north, across Immokalee Road by office and medical (North Collier Hospital)
PUD zoned and developed property; on the east by Medical Office Park currently
under development, County Park and County Wastewater Treatment Facility; and on
the south by PUD and County Wastewater Treatment Facility. The location of the
site is shown on Exhibit A Aerial Photograph, Location Map.
B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of PUD application is I
(Industrial) and A (Agricultural).
C. Elevations within the site are approximately 7.5 to 9 feet-NGVD. Per FEMA Firm
Map Panels No. 1200670193D, dated June 3, 1986, the Creekside Commerce Park
property is located within Zones "AE-11" of the FEMA flood insurance rate.
Topographic mapping is shown on Exhibit G.
D. The soil types on the site generally include Riviera limestone substratum, Copeland
fine sand, Pineda fine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Myakka fine sand, Basinger fine
sand, Riveria fine sand, Ft. Drum and Malabar fine sand, and Satellite fine sand.
Soil Conservation Service mapping of soil types is shown on Exhibit D.
E. Prior to development, vegetation on the site primarily consists of active croplands
and small amounts of pine flatwoods. An isolated wetland system is located along
the south side of Immokalee Road west of Goodlette-Frank Road. This wetland
consists primarily of Brazilian pepper that surrounds a small willow area. The
wetland on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road consists primarily of cabbage
palms. A portion of the historic water course within this wetland has been
channelized. Brazilian pepper has infested the northern part of this wetland. A
detailed vegetation mapping is shown on Exhibit C.
F. The project site is located within the Pine Ridge Canal and West Branch
Cocohatchee River sub-basins, as depicted within the Collier County Drainage Atlas
(July, 1995). The Conceptual Stormwater Management Master Plan is shown on
Exhibit H.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 1-5 August 31, 2016
1.5 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
Creekside Commerce Park does not meet the minimum thresholds for a Development of
Regional Impact (DRI), pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes, 19972016, in that it is
at or below 80% of all numerical thresholds in the guidelines and standards set forth therein.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-1 August 31, 2016
SECTION II
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
2.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for
Creekside Commerce Park (park), and to identify relationships to applicable County
ordinances, policies, and procedures.
2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK AND PROPOSED LAND USES
A. Creekside Commerce Park will consist of predominately industrial, warehouse,
wholesale, financial institutions, business and office uses, with limited amounts of
retail uses. Creekside Commerce Park shall establish project-wide guidelines and
standards to ensure a high and consistent level of quality for proposed features and
facilities.
B. The Master Plan is illustrated graphically on Exhibit B (WMB&P, Inc. File No. RZ-
225B). A Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreages is shown
on the Master plan. The location, size, and configuration of individual tracts shall be
determined at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval with minor
adjustments at the time of Final Plat approval, in accordance with Section 3.2.7.2. of
the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC).
2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES
A. Regulations for development of Creekside Commerce Park shall be in accordance
with the contents of this PUD Ordinance, and to the extent they are not inconsistent
with this PUD Ordinance, applicable sections of the LDC and Collier County
Growth Management Plan which are in effect at the time of issuance of any
development order. Where this PUD Ordinance does not provide developmental
standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC that is otherwise
applicable shall apply to which said regulations relate.
B. Unless otherwise defined herein, or as necessarily implied by context, the definitions
of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the
time of development order application.
C. Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to the Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance, Division 3.15 of the LDC.
D. All conditions imposed herein or as represented on the Creekside Commerce Park
Master Plan are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land
may be developed.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-2 August 31, 2016
E. The Site Development Plans Division of the LDC (Article 3, Division 3.3) shall
apply to Creekside Commerce Park, except where an exemption is set forth herein or
otherwise granted pursuant to LDC Section 3.3.4.
F. The Developer shall submit to the County an annual PUD monitoring report in
accordance with LDC Section 2.7.3.6.
2.4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
A. The Developer may elect to establish a Community Development District (CDD)
pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, 1997, to provide and maintain
infrastructure and community facilities needed to serve the park. A CDD would
constitute a timely, efficient, effective, responsive and economic way to ensure the
provision of facilities and infrastructure for the proposed development. Such
infrastructure as may be constructed, managed and financed by the CDD shall be
subject to, and shall not be inconsistent with, the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and all applicable ordinances dealing with planning and
permitting of Creekside Commerce Park.
B. The land area is amenable to infrastructure provision by a district that has the powers
set forth in the charter of a Community Development District under Section 190.006
through 190.041, Florida Statutes. Such a district is a legitimate alternative available
both to the County and to the landowner for the timely and sustained provision of
quality infrastructure under the terms and conditions of County development
approval.
2.5 LAND USES
A. The location of land uses are shown on the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit B. Changes
and variations in building tracts, location and acreage of these uses shall be
permitted at preliminary subdivision plat approval, preliminary site development
plan approval and final site development plan approval to accommodate utilities,
topography, vegetation, and other site and market conditions, subject to the
provisions of Section 2.7.3.5. of the Collier County LDC. The specific location and
size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be
determined at the time of site development plan approval.
B. Roads and other infrastructure may be either public, private or a combination of
public and private, depending on location, design and purpose. The request for a
road to be public shall be made by the Developer at the time of final subdivision plat
approval. The Developer or its assignees shall be responsible for maintaining the
roads, streets, drainage, common areas, water and sewer improvements where such
systems are not dedicated to the County. Standards for roads shall be in compliance
with the applicable provisions of the County Code regulating subdivisions, unless
otherwise approved during subdivision approval. The Developer reserves the right
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-3 August 31, 2016
to request substitutions to Code design standards in accordance with Section 3.2.7.2.
of the LDC.
2.6 LAKE SITING
A. As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, lakes have been preliminary sited. The goal
of this Master Plan is to achieve and overall aesthetic character for the park, to
permit optimum use of the land, and to increase the efficiency of the water
management network. Fill material from lakes is planned to be utilized within the
park; however, excess fill material may be utilized off-site. The volume of
material to be removed shall be limited to ten percent of the calculated excavation
volume to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. If the applicant wishes to take more
off-site, a commercial excavation permit will be required. Final lake area
determination shall be in accordance with the South Florida Water Management
District stormwater criteria and Section 3.5.7. of the LDC.
1. Setbacks: Excavations shall be located so that the control elevation shall
adhere to the following minimum setback requirements, subject to
approval of County staff at time of final construction plan approval:
a) Twenty feet (20’) from right-of-way of internal roads. The roads
will be designed to (AASHTO) road standards and shall
incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank
slope, road cross sections, and need for barriers.
b) Forty feet (40’) from Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road
rights-of-way. Perimeter property lines will have a setback of
twenty feet (20’). The roads will be designed to (AASHTO) road
standards and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment,
travel speed, bank slope, road cross sections and need for barriers.
2.7 FILL STORAGE
A. Fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Creekside
Commerce Park PUD. Fill material generated from properties owned or leased by
the Developer may be transported and stockpiled within areas which have been
disturbed. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, the Developer shall notify the
Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator per Section
3.2.8.3.6. of the LDC. The following standards shall apply:
1. Stockpile maximum height: Thirty-five feet (35')
2. Fill storage areas in excess of five feet (5') in height shall be separated from
developed areas by fencing, excavated water bodies or other physical
barriers if the side slope of the stockpile is steeper than 4 to 1 (i.e. 3 to 1).
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-4 August 31, 2016
a) Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with LDC
Division 3.7.
2.8 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Utilization of lands within all park rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative entrance
ways, and signage shall be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the
Developer and the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator
for engineering and safety considerations during the development review process.
2.9 SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE
Sales offices, construction offices, and other uses and structures related to the promotion
and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall
be permitted principal uses throughout Creekside Commerce Park. These uses may be
either wet or dry facilities. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Section
2.6.33.4., Section 3.2.6.3.6. and Division 3.3 of the LDC, with the exception that the
temporary use permit shall be valid through the life of the project with no extension of
the temporary use required. These uses may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste
disposal subject to permitting under F.A.C. 10D-6 and may use potable water or
irrigation wells.
2.10 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN
A. Changes and amendments may be made to this PUD Ordinance or PUD Master Plan
as provided in Section 2.7.3.5. of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as
described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of
development or permit application required by the LDC.
B. The Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator shall be
authorized to approve minor changes and refinements to the Creekside Commerce
Park Master Plan upon written request of the Developer or his assignee.
C. The following limitations shall apply to such requests:
1) The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier County
Growth Management Plan and the Creekside Commerce Park PUD
document.
2) The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change
pursuant to Section 2.7.3.5.1. of the LDC.
3) The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with external adjacent
land uses and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land uses,
water management facilities, and conservation areas within or external to the
PUD.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-5 August 31, 2016
D. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements:
1) Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, or other water management facilities
where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida
Water Management District and Collier County.
2) Internal realignment of rights-of-ways.
3) Reconfiguration of parcels per Section 5.5 of this PUD.
E. Minor changes and refinements as described above shall be reviewed by appropriate
Collier County staff to ensure that said changes and refinements are otherwise in
compliance with all applicable County Ordinances and regulations prior to the
Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator’s
consideration for approval.
F. Approval by the Community Development and Environmental Services
Administrator of a minor change or refinement may occur independently from and
prior to any application for Subdivision or Site Development Plan approval,
however such approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or
implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all other
necessary County permits and approvals.
2.11 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT PHASING
Submission, review, and approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plats for the park may be
accomplished in phases to correspond with the planned development of the property.
2.12 OPEN SPACE AND NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS
The PUD will fully comply with all sections of the LDC and meet the requirements of the
Growth Management Plan relating to open space and retention of native vegetation.
2.13 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD), Chapters 40E-4 and 4-E-40, this project shall be designed for a storm event
of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency. The lake originally approved as Lake L-
1, Creekside Unit I Plat, shall continue to be operated and maintained in accordance with
the approved plat and approved South Florida Water Management District Permit.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-6 August 31, 2016
2.14 ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental
Resource Permitting (ERP) Rules, and shall further be subject to review and approval by
Collier County Planning Services Department Environmental Review Staff.
Vegetation shall be retained in accordance with the criteria established in the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Section 3.05.00 of the
LDC, except as provided for in Deviation for off-site native vegetation preservation in
Section 4.5.3 of this PUD Ordinance.
2.15 UTILITIES
All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the
continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable
regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested.
2.16 TRANSPORTATION
A. The Developer shall provide appropriate left and/or right turn lanes on Immokalee
Road and Goodlette-Frank Road at the main park entrances. Such turn lanes shall
be in place prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for a use that
utilizes the perspective/associated entrance.
B. There shall be a full access intersection at the park’s southern entrance on
Goodlette Frank Road. When justified by traffic warrants, this intersection shall
be signalized, notwithstanding its proximity to Immokalee Road.
C. Future access points to Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank Roads are those shown
on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan.
D. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided by the Developer at the park’s main
entrance in conjunction with the development of this entrance.
E. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance
92-22, as amended.
F. The Developer shall provide the appropriate easements or reserve right of way so
that the southerly access road west of Goodlette Frank Road may be
interconnected to the properties to the west of Creekside Commerce Park.
G. The Developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of
traffic signals at any project access when deemed warranted by Collier County.
The signal shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County.
H. The Developer agrees to complete construction of the segment of internal
roadway that connects Goodlette-Frank Road to the I/C parcel (herein called
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-7 August 31, 2016
“southern parcel”) that is west of Goodlette Road and abuts Pelican Marsh prior
to the first of the following to occur:
1) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the “southern parcel”;
2) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the second business parcel to
be developed west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement;
3) Within 3 years of approval of this PUD; or
4) Within 9 months of obtaining “grant” money or other funds for
construction of such infrastructure from an outside source.
I. The I/C parcels west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement and immediately north
of the south road shall connect for service and employee access at the time that
the south road is extended to a point that they may connect.
J. The Developer agrees to provide the County with an update of the Transportation
Impact Statement (TIS) at the time of submittal of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat
or Site Development Plan.
K. The Goodlette-Frank Road southernmost access to the I/C parcel east of
Goodlette-Frank Road shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access.
L. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses both primary and
ancillary may not exceed 17542,053 PM Peak Hour, two-way trips.
2.17 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE
Most common area maintenance will be provided by the CDD or by a Property Owner’s
Association (POA). The CDD or the POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the
operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater
management systems and reserves serving Creekside Commerce Park, in accordance with
any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District.
2.18 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage
ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or
redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set
forth in the LDC, Section 2.2.20.
B. Creekside Commerce Park is planned as a functionally interrelated business park
under unified control. The Developer will establish community-wide guidelines
and standards to ensure a high level of quality for both the common areas and the
individual parcel developments.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-8 August 31, 2016
C. These guidelines will serve as a control for individual parcel development, and be
referred to as The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for
Creekside Commerce Park. The level of quality defined in this document is
directed towards the creation of an attractive business environment, and these
standards are the basis for evaluation of projects submitted for review to the
Property Association’s Architectural and Landscaping Committee, referred to as
the ALC. The standards in this document will include criteria for site planning,
architectural design, lighting, landscaping, and graphics and signage.
D. The specific design guidelines will act as supplemental standards to the
requirements of this Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and other County
codes, but in no way supersede them.
1. Common Areas
The master design of the park’s entries and signage, streetscapes, and open space
areas will form a harmonious framework that visually links the entire park
together. This unified appearance will enhance the image of the entire
community. Internal roadways will provide efficient vehicular circulation with
streetscapes that create pleasant neighborhood environments. Streetscape plans
will be designed to establish a hierarchy of landscape improvements appropriate
in scale and character with the function of the street and adjacent land uses. Along
these streetscapes a pedestrian walkway system will be established to link each
project with the overall community.
2. Individual Projects
A. Site Planning: Each individual parcel project will provide a visually
appealing, articulated, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and
vehicles from the street to the site and from the site to the buildings
themselves. The orientation of a building or structure upon a site
will not only reflect the project’s functional need, but will also be
responsive to the individual parcel’s characteristics and be sensitive
to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community.
B. Architectural standards: The objective of the architectural standards
will be to promote the creation of an attractive, value-apparent
business environment. Design elements throughout a project must
be consistent with the nature of the chosen style and building
materials selected. Project design should endeavor to adhere to the
classical principles of design and avoid clichés, overly complex or
garish motifs, while seeking to invoke a “timeless” quality.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-9 August 31, 2016
C. Lighting: The guidelines for lighting will establish a continuity of
design for all lighting in the park which is consistent with the overall
visual impression of the park.
D. Landscaping: The purpose of landscape design guidelines within
individual projects is to guide development toward harmonious and
visually pleasing landscape that is cohesive with the overall master
landscape plan. The Creekside landscape concept will have a
naturalistic theme. Similar to the overall project’s plant palette,
individual sites will be dominated with plants that are native, xeric,
or naturalized within Southwest Florida. Landscape designs will
create a coherent theme which emphasizes plant material as a
primary unifying element.
1. Landscape elements along public R.O.W.s will be
complimentary to streetscape landscaping. Parcel entries will
be designed to harmonize with adjacent streetscape
landscaping, and clearly accentuate, the parcel entry.
2. Individual parking lots will be screened from the roadways as
much as possible, without obscuring views of the building
entrances. In addition, plant materials used around main
entrances of buildings will visually cue visitors to their
location.
E. Graphics/signage: The guidelines serve to provide continuity of
design for all signage in the park which is consistent with the overall
visual impression of the park. Parcel signage serves the
identification needs of the individual tenants and user.
2.19 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS
Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use
throughout Creekside Commerce Park. Required buffer treatments shall terminate at
entrances to accommodate entrance treatments and at lakes to accommodate views into
the park. The following standards shall apply:
A. Landscape buffers contiguous to Immokalee Road R.O.W. will be installed at the
time of subdivision improvement per construction phase and will have the
following characteristics:
1) Minimum width of 20’-0”, measured from the R.O.W.
2) Adjacent to Business District type uses within the Business District, trees will
be native, xeric, or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25’ on center (O.C.),
planted at an initial height of 13’-14’ overall (O.A.) with a 6’ spread. In
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-10 August 31, 2016
addition, a continuous 24” high shrub hedge shall be provided within the 20’
buffer.
B. Landscape buffers contiguous to Goodlette-Frank Road R.O.W. will be installed
at the time of subdivision improvement per development phase and will have the
following characteristics:
1) Minimum width of 20’-0”, measured from the R.O.W.
2) Adjacent to Business District type uses within the Business and
Industrial/Commerce (I/C) Districts, trees will be native, xeric, or naturalized
canopy trees, spaced at 25’ O.C., planted at an initial height of 12’ O.A., with
a 6’ spread. At the time of individual lot improvements, hedges will be placed
at parking lot edges to satisfy the requirements of LDC Section 2.4.7.4.
3) Adjacent to industrial type uses within the Industrial/Commerce District, trees
will be native, xeric or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25’ O.C., planted at
an initial height of 12’ O.A, with a 6’ spread. Trees will be placed on a berm,
3 feet high and supplemented with a 5 foot high hedge consisting of but not
limited to the following plant material: coco plum, viburnam, ficus. The
intent will be to obtain 80% opacity within one year of planting for travelers
on Goodlette-Frank Road.
C. Landscape buffers surrounding the perimeter of the park will be installed at the
time of subdivision improvement per construction phase. The buffers are
referenced on Exhibit B, and proceed in a clockwise direction from the northeast
corner of the project as follows:
1) The landscape buffer along the eastern most property boundary, north of the
preserve area, as depicted on Exhibit B, shall consist of an Alternative “A”
type buffer. Any preservation areas within this buffer may be credited toward
buffering requirements.
2) The preserve area along the balance of the eastern most property boundary
will serve as the buffer between uses.
3) The Developer will provide a five feet (5’) wide Alternative “A” type buffer
with trees planted fifty feet (50’) on center between the business use and the
preserve/lake area, as depicted on Exhibit B.
4) The Developer will provide a five feet (5’) wide Alternative “A” type
landscape buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50’) on center along the eastern
property boundary contiguous to the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant.
5) The landscape buffer along the southern most property boundary, east of
Goodlette-Frank Road, shall be a five feet (5’) wide Alternative “A” type
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-11 August 31, 2016
buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50’) on center. An opaque hedge six feet
(6’) high will be planted to supplement the existing oak tree buffer planted by
the County at the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant.
6) The existing landscape berm/buffer from Goodlette Frank Road to the west
side of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement will be supplemented as follows: a
type “A” buffer along the proposed lake; and the remaining area westward of
the lake will be supplemented to consist of 50 sabal palms, 8’-14’ O.A. and 4
Ficus nitida 12’-13’ O.A. and 6’-8’ wide; locations to be coordinated with the
adjacent property owner.
7) The Developer will provide a ninety percent (90%) opaque landscape buffer
and berm between the I/C District and the Pelican Marsh PUD from the west
side of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement to the existing berm to the west,
that approximates the existing Pelican Marsh berm/buffer. This buffer will be
installed concurrent with any I/C construction west of the Pine Ridge
Drainage Easement. The buffer shall meet ninety percent (90%) opacity
within one (1) year of planting.
8) The Developer will supplement with additional trees the buffer along the
remaining portion of the southern property line westward to achieve a ninety
percent (90%) opaque buffer. This buffer will be installed concurrent with
any I/C construction west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement.
9) The landscape buffer between the I/C District and the adjacent Agricultural
District along the southern portion of the western property line will be an
Alternative “A” type buffer.
10) The landscape buffer between the R.O.W. and the adjacent Agricultural
District to the west will be an Alternative “A” type buffer and be incorporated
into the R.O.W.
D. Maximum fence or wall height internal to the PUD: Twelve feet (12').
E. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls will be constructed along the perimeter
of the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundary concurrent with subdivision and
site development construction phase, except where noted in this document.
F. Sidewalks, water management systems, drainage structures, and utilities may be
allowed in landscape buffers pursuant to review and approval of the Development
Services Administrator.
G. Landscape berms located within the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundary and
contiguous to a property line and/or right-of-way line may be constructed such that
the toe of slope is located on the property line and/or encroaches into the right-of-
way line when approved by the applicable owner or agency.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-12 August 31, 2016
2.20 SIGNAGE
A. GENERAL
1) Pursuant to Section 2.5.5.2.3.7. of the LDC, the following conditions provide
for the required comprehensive sign plan for the Creekside Commerce Park
2) Each platted parcel shall be considered a separate parcel of land.
3) Signs and decorative landscaped entrance features within a County dedicated
right-of-way, shall require a right-of way permit subject to the review and
approval of the County.
4) All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight line obstructions.
B. PARK ENTRY SIGNS
1) Major park entry signs shall be located as depicted on Exhibit B. Each sign
will not exceed 160 square feet in size on any side and signs will be no longer
than 25 feet in length and 8 feet in height.
2) Minor park entry signs shall be located as depicted Exhibit B. Each minor
monument sign will not exceed 100 square feet in size on any side. Minor
monument signs will be no larger than 20 feet in length and 8 feet in height.
C. INTERNAL SIGNS
1) Directional or identification signs are allowed within the business park. Such
signs may be used to identify the location or direction of approved uses such
as sales centers, information centers, etc. Individual signs may be a maximum
of 4 square feet per side in size, or signs maintaining a common architectural
theme may be combined to form a menu board with a maximum size of 25
square feet per side, and a maximum height of 8 feet. No building permit is
required unless such signs are combined to form a menu board.
2) Grand Opening signs: The Developer or parcel owner may display an on-site
grand opening sign not exceeding 32 square feet on a side, and not exceeding
64 square feet total. Banner signs shall be anchored and may be displayed on-
site for a period not exceeding 14 days within the first three months that the
Developer/occupant is open for business.
D. USER SIGNS
1) Wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs: One wall, mansard, canopy or
awning sign may be permitted for each single-occupancy facility, or for each
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-13 August 31, 2016
establishment in a multiple-occupancy facility. Corner units within multiple-
occupancy facilities, or multi-frontage single-occupancy facilities shall be
allowed two signs, but such signs shall not be combined for the purpose of
placing the combined area on one wall. However, the combined area of those
signs shall not exceed the maximum allowable display area for signs by this
ordinance.
a. The maximum allowable display area for signs may not be more than 15
percent of the total square footage of the visual facade of the building to
which the sign will be attached and may not, in any case, exceed 200
square feet in area for any sign.
2) Monument and Pole signs: One (1) monument or pole sign is permitted for
each lot or parcel for each external and internal road frontage(s).
a. Internal road frontage setbacks: A minimum of fifteen feet (15’) from the
edge of pavement. Signs may encroach within the right-of-way subject to
maintaining safe site distance triangles as per Section 2.4.4.16. of the LDC
and when approved by the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator and applicable utility.
b. External road frontage setbacks: Pole signs shall be setback from any
external right-of-way in accordance with the applicable section of the
LDC. Monument signs may be permitted closer to the right-of-way
subject to maintaining safe site distance triangles as per Section 2.4.4.16.
of the LDC and when approved by the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator and applicable utility.
c. Spot or floodlights may be permitted provided said light shines only on the
signs or landscaping and is shielded from motorists and adjacent residents.
d. Should the U.S. Postal Service purchase or lease land within Creekside
Commerce Park, in addition to the user signs as permitted herein, they will
be allowed one sign between Immokalee Road and the proposed lake
adjacent to the west entry.
E. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic signs such as street name signs, stop signs, speed limit signs, etc. may be
designed to reflect a common architectural theme, in accordance with Section
3.2.8.3.19. of the LDC.
2. 21 GENERAL PERMITTED USES
A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Creekside
Commerce Park PUD except in the Preserve Area. General permitted uses are those
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-14 August 31, 2016
uses which generally serve the Developer and tenants of Creekside Commerce Park
and are typically part of the common infrastructure.
B. General Permitted Uses:
1. Essential services as set forth under LDC, Section 2.6.9.1.
2. Water management facilities and related structures.
3. Temporary sewage treatment facilities.
4. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural
bank treatments.
5. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures.
6. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer
and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary
access ways, parking areas and related uses.
7. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms,
fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.11 of this
PUD.
8. Fill storage subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD. Site
filling and grading as set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD.
9. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and
which the Community Development and Environmental Services
Administrator determines to be compatible.
10. Sidewalks may occur within County required buffers if approved by the
Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator.
11. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such
standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the LDC
provision in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval.
12. Creekside Commerce Park shall be permitted to develop with a maximum of
40 percent commercial uses. Commercial uses are defined as offices, health
services, medical clinics, financial institutions, fitness centers, childcare
centers, restaurants and retail sales in accordance with Section 3.3. C.2.
hereof.
2. 22 MISCELLANEOUS
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-15 August 31, 2016
A. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights
on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does
not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the
applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a
state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or
federal law.
B. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement
of the development.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-1 August 31, 2016
SECTION III
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE DISTRICT
3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for
areas within Creekside Commerce Park designated on the Master Plan as "I/C".
3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Areas designated as “I/C” on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of
550716,000 square feet of gross floor area of industrial/commerce uses on 41.649.90.±
net acres. Intermediate care (SIC Code 8052), group housing and hotel/motel uses (SIC
Code 7011) are in addition to the IC gross square footage figures. The overall floor area
ratio (FAR) for the IC designated areas may exceed .35. Individual parcels may be
developed at a higher FAR and the FAR for hotel/motel, group housing and intermediate
care facilities (SIC Code 8052) shall not exceed .6. (Refer to Section 3.5, Deviations);
however, the overall FAR for the PUD for IC and B District areas will not exceed .3545,
excluding parking structures.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the United States Postal Service parcel may use any
available square footage in the I/C District and the Business District up to a FAR of .35
on the United States Postal Service Parcel until all available square footages are used up
in the PUD.
3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in
whole or part, for other than the following:
A. The permitted principal uses and structures will generally consist of light
manufacturing, wholesale, warehouse, processing and packaging, laboratories and
clinics, research, design and product development, business services and corporate
offices and headquarters.
1. Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment (Group 3728)
2. Apparel and Other Finished Products (Groups 2311-2399)
3. Building Contractors (Groups 1521-1542), except for general contractors for
mobile home repair on site, modular housing and premanufactured housing
assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill
construction, and truck and automobile assembly plant construction.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-2 August 31, 2016
4. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338, 7352,
7359-7389 except for industrial truck rental and leasing; plants, live: rental
and leasing; toilets, portable: rental and leasing; employment agencies,
except theatrical and motion picture; labor contractors (employment
agencies) model registries; labor pools; manpower pools; modeling service;
dogs, rental of: for protective service; automobile recovery service;
automobile repossession service; bartering services for businesses;
bondspersons; bottle exchanges; check validation service; contractors
disbursement control; filling pressure containers (aerosol) with hair spray,
insecticides, etc.; fire extinguishers, service of gas systems, contract
conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on
a contract or fee basis produce weighing service, not connected with
transportation; scrap steel cutting on a contract or fee basis; solvents
recovery service on a contract or fee basis; tobacco sheeting service on a
contract or fee basis)
5. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351)
6. Communications (Groups 4812-4899 not including major communications
towers related to cellular phone service, radio broadcasting, television
broadcasting, radar or telephone service)
7. Computer and Office Equipment (Groups 3571-3579)
8. Construction; Special Trade Contractors (Groups 1711-1799 except for
boiler erection and installation contractors; drainage system installations,
cesspool and septic tank contractors; fuel oil burner installation and servicing
contractors; gasoline hookup contractors; sewer hookups and connection for
buildings contractors; epoxy application contractors; fireproofing buildings
contractors; gasoline pump installation contractors; lead burning contractors;
and mobile home site setup and tie down contractors)
9. Depository and Non-Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6163)
10. Drugs and Medicines (Groups 2833-2836, except for adrenal derivatives:
bulk, uncompounded; barbituric acid and derivatives: bulk, uncompounded;
cocaine and derivatives; codeine and derivatives; gland derivatives: bulk,
uncompounded; mercury chlorides, U.S.P; mercury compounds, medicinal:
organic and inorganic; morphine and derivatives; opium derivatives)
11. Educational Services (Groups 8249-8299 except construction equipment
operation schools; truck driving schools; automobile driving instruction;
survival schools; vocational counseling)
12. Electronics and Other Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (Groups 3612,
3613, 3624, 3625, 3631, 3641-3676, 3678, 3679, 3694, 3695, 3699, except
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-3 August 31, 2016
for airport lighting transformers, autotransformers, electric (power
transformers) distribution transformers, electric; electric furnace
transformers; lighting transformers, street and airport; transformers, reactor;
atom smashers (particle accelerators; electron beam metal cutting, forming,
and welding machines; electron linear accelerators; electrostatic particle
accelerators))
13. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services
(Groups 8711-8748 except chemical laboratories, commercial research;
automobile proving and testing grounds; metallurgical testing laboratories;
pollution testing, except automotive emissions testing; radiation dosimetry
laboratories; seed testing laboratories; veterinary testing laboratories)
14. Fabricated Metal Products (Groups 3411-3432, 3442, 3444, 3446, 3452,
3469, 3492, 3495, 3496, production of metal is prohibited)
15. Furniture and Fixtures Manufacturing (Groups 2511-2599)
16. Government Offices/Buildings (Groups 9111-9199, 9221, 9222, 9224-9229,
9311, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611, 9631-9661)
17. Hotels / Motels (Group 7011), not to exceed a maximum of 180 rooms for
the entire PUD. Only 1 Hotel/Motel is permitted within the PUD and it must
be located east of Goodlette-Frank Road and subject to specific development
standards and setbacks in Section 3.4.
18. Industrial and Commercial Machinery (Groups 3524, 3546, 3553-3556,
3559, 3562, 3564-3566, 3581-3599 except for bronzing and dusting
machines for printing trades; foundry type for printing; presses, printing -
slugs printers’; ammunition and explosives loading machinery; brick making
machines; cement making machinery; chemical kilns; control rod drive
mechanisms for use on nuclear reactors; foundry machinery and equipment;
frame straighteners, automotive (garage equipment); fur sewing machines;
ginning machines, cotton; metal finishing equipment for plating, except
rolling mill lines; metal pickling equipment, except rolling mill lines)
19. Leather and Leather Products (Groups 3131-3199)
20. Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments; Photographic, Medical
and Optical Goods: Watches and Clocks Manufacturing (Groups 3812-3843,
3845-3873)
21. Membership Organizations (Groups 8611-8631)
22. Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (Groups 3911-3999 except for
dressing of furs: bleaching, blending, curring, scraping, and tanning;
feathers: curling, dyeing, and renovating - for the trade; fur stripping; furs
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-4 August 31, 2016
dressed: bleached, curried, scraped, tanned, and dyed; pelts: scraping,
curring, tanning, bleaching and dyeing; plumes, feather; tear gas devices and
equipment; veils made of hair)
23. Motion Picture Production (Groups 7812-7819)
24. Motor Freight Transportation (Groups 4214, 4215)
25. Packing and Crating (Group 4783)
26. Paper and Allied Products (Groups 2652-2657, 2673-2679)
27. Personal Services (Groups 7213, 7216, 7219, 7221)
28. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991)
29. Plastic Materials and Synthetics (Groups 2833,2834)
30. Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries (Groups 2711-2791)
31. Professional Offices: including but not limited to, Travel Agencies (Group
4724); Insurance Agencies (Group 6411); Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311-
6399); Real Estate (Groups 6512, 6514, 6517, 6519, 6531, 6541, 6552,)
32. Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products (Groups 3021, 3085, 3086, 3088,
3089)
33. Transportation Equipment (Group 3732, except for boats, fiberglass:
building and repairing; boats: motorboats, sailboats, rowboats, and canoes -
building and repairing; houseboats, building and repairing; motorboats,
inboard and outboard: building and repairing)
34. United States Postal Service (Group 4311)
35. Warehousing and Storage (Group 4225, 4226, 5014 except oil and gas
storage, petroleum and chemical bulk stations and automobile dead storage)
only one (1) self-storage use allowed to be located adjacent to the Collier
County Sewage Treatment Plant.
36. Wholesale Trade-Durable Goods (Groups 5021-5031, 5043-5049, 5063-
5074, 5078, 5091, 5092, 5094-5099 except for fencing, wood-wholesale;
lumber: rough, dressed, and finished-wholesale; batteries, except
automotive-wholesale; storage batteries, industrial-wholesale; unit
substations-wholesale; boilers, power: industrial-wholesale; boilers, steam
and hot water heating-wholesale; burners, fuel oil and distillate oil-
wholesale; oil burners-wholesale)
37. Wholesale Trade-Nondurable Goods (Groups 5111-5143, 5145, 5147-5149,
5192, 5199 except for cats-wholesale; charcoal-wholesale; dogs-wholesale;
fish, tropical-wholesale; furs, dressed-wholesale; greases, animal and
vegetable-wholesale; ice, manufactured or natural-wholesale, leather and cut
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-5 August 31, 2016
stock-wholesale; linseed oil-wholesale; oils, except cooking: animal and
vegetable-wholesale; oilseed cake and meal-wholesale; rubber, crude-
wholesale; sawdust-wholesale; vegetable cake and meal-wholesale; wigs-
wholesale; worms-wholesale)
38. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement
of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District.
B. Restricted Principal Uses
The following medical related uses must be located within a 1/4 mile radius of the
hospital property boundary.
1. Group housing for the elderly limited to Assisted living facilities,
independent living units, skilled nursing units and continuing care retirement
communities. A maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the
uses listed in Sections 3.3.B.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and 4.3.B.3. These uses are
limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road.
2. Health Services, medical clinics and offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), a
maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in
Sections 3.3.B.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and 4.3.B.3. SIC Code 8052 land uses are
limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road.
3. Medical Laboratories and research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071-
8092, 8099)
4. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement
of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District.
C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures:
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in this
district.
2. Retail and wholesale sales and/or display areas as accessory to the principal
use, not to exceed an area greater than forty percent (40%) of the gross floor
area of the permitted principal use.
D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing
Group housing uses described in Section 3.2.B.1A.16 shall provide the following
services and/or be subject to the following operational standards:
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-6 August 31, 2016
1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older.
2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents.
3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the
purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual
transportation services may be provided for the residents’ individualized
needs including but not limited to medical office visits.
4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist
residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also
be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning
for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at
the on-site clubhouse.
5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness
programs shall be provided for the residents.
6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the
event of medical or other emergency.
7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical
impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes
and federal law and regulation.
3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 S.F.
B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT.
C. Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front Yard, adjacent to Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road: Fifty
feet (50’). For parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road, see additional
setback requirements in Section 3.4.C.7.a.
2. Front Yard, Internal: Thirty feet (30’)
3. Side Yard: Ten feet (10’)
Five feet (5’) to internal property line along Pine Ridge canal
drainage easement and FP&L easement
4. Waterfront: Zero feet (0’) to bulkhead or rip-rap at top of bank, otherwise
twenty feet (20’)
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-7 August 31, 2016
5. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25’)
6. Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD: Fifty feet
(50’)
7. Minimum Building Setback from Existing Goodlette-Frank Road Right-of-
Way East of Goodlette-Frank Road:
a) Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50’), except as
provided as follows:
i) For group housing for elderly and intermediate care use:
(a) If the zoned height of any structure exceeds 50 feet,
the minimum setback is 75 feet plus for any portion
of a building exceeding fifty feet in zoned height an
increased setback at a 1:2 ratio (i.e., for one vertical
foot of height, setback is increased by two
horizontal feet) for that portion of the building over
50 feet of height.
ii) For hotel/motel use:
(a) Minimum setback of 75 feet regardless of height
plus for any portion of a building exceeding fifty
feet in zoned height an increased setback at a 1:2
ratio (i.e., for one vertical foot of height, setback is
increased by two horizontal feet) for that portion of
the building over 50 feet of height.
D. Maximum Height (Zoned): For parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road: thirty-
fivefifty feet (35’50’), including silos, storage tanks, elevator towers, satellite dishes,
antennas, etc. Facilities located on Tract 5 on the Master Plan shall have a
maximum zoned height of one-hundred eighty five (185’) feet and a maximum
actual height of two-hundred five (205’) feet, For parcels east of Goodlette-Frank
Road: the Hotel, group housing for the elderly, and the intermediate care facility
shall have a zoned height seventy-five feet (75’), actual height eight-five feet (85’).
All other uses permitted east of Goodlette-Frank Road pursuant to Section III shall
have a zoned height of fifty feet (50’) and an actual height of sixty feet (60’).
E. Outside storage or display shall be permitted and shall be screened from all internal
and external public roadways with a fence or landscaping equivalent or combination
thereof. Said fence, wall or landscaped screen shall be opaque in design. All
manufacturing operations and equipment, including accessory process equipment
such as compressors and air handlers shall be contained in an enclosed structure.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-8 August 31, 2016
F. All industrial I/C buildings sides visible from roadways internal or external to the
park shall have the appearance of a concrete material, such as, but not limited to,
block, brick, tilt up concrete panels, stucco on lathe systems, etc. Corrugated steel
sides visible from said roadways are prohibited; as well as exposed metal siding on
any building west of Goodlette Frank Road.shall meet the requirements of Section
5.05.08 of the LDC, except for buildings located on Tract 5 on the Master Plan,
which shall be exempt from Section 5.05.08 of the LDC (see Section 3.5.2,
Development Deviations, of this PUD Ordinance).
G. Business District type uses located within the I/C District along Goodlette-Frank
Road will meet the Collier County Architectural Guidelines in Division 2.8. of the
LDC.
H. Industrial type uses abutting Goodlette-Frank Road shall meet the requirements of
Section 2.19.B.3 hereof, alternatively, said uses shall have the option of utilizing the
landscaped buffer applicable to business uses fronting Goodlette-Frank Road,
provided the portion of the building facing Goodlette-Frank Road meets the
following Architectural Guideline Sections of the LDC, therefore satisfying the
intent of the building design section of the Architectural Guidelines in the opinion of
the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator:
1. Section 2.8.3.5.1., Purpose and Intent
2. Section 2.8.3.5.4., Facade Standard
3. Section 2.8.3.5.6., Project Standards
4. Section 2.8.3.5.7., Detail Features except for 2.8.3.5.7.2.
5. Section 2.8.3.5.12.
I. Loading Areas: Buildings west of the Pine Ridge canal and adjacent to the Pelican
Marsh boundary shall orient loading docks to the north, east or west.
J. Noise: Uses within the I/C District shall not exceed 65 dBA between the hours of
7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 60 dBA after 10 p.m. to 6:59
a.m. and all of Sundays, as measured at the property boundary of the land use
from which the sound emanates.
K. Odor: No business shall cause or allow the emission of odorous air from any
single source such as to result in odors which are detectable outside the parcel
boundaries. Best practical treatment, maintenance, and control currently available
shall be utilized in order to maintain the lowest possible emission of odorous air.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-9 August 31, 2016
L. Lighting: Lighting shall be located so that no light is aimed directly toward a
property designated residential if lighting is located within 200 feet of residential
property. Light fixtures within parking areas shall not exceed 25 feet in height.
M. Emissions: All sources of air emissions shall comply with rules set forth by the
Environmental Protection Agency (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40) and the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Florida Administrative Code,
Chapter 17-2). No person shall operate a regulated source of air emissions
without a valid operation permit issued by the Department of Environmental
Regulation.
3.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS
1. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes a .45 floor area ratio
(FAR) for group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses,
including the intermediate care facilities.
2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08G, Deviations and alternate compliance,
which authorizes the County Manager or designee to administratively approve
deviations from compliance with Section 5.05.08 of the LDC for specific types of
buildings, to permit the administrative approval of deviations for office buildings
and parking garages at the time of Site Development Plan approval of Tract 5 on
the Master Plan.
3.6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESTRICTIONS
The use of bald cypress trees to meet the landscape buffer requirements in section
2.19.B.2. (and B.3) are prohibited
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-1 August 31, 2016
SECTION IV
BUSINESS DISTRICT
4.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for
areas within Creekside Commerce Park designated on the Master Plan as "B".
4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Areas designated as “B” on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of
260294,000 square feet of floor area, including approximately 200244,000 square feet of
office uses and 6050,000 square feet of retail uses on 19.124.88± net acres. Intermediate
care facilities (SIC Code 8052), group housing and hotel/motel uses (SIC Code 7011) are
in addition to the B District gross square footage figures. The overall floor area ratio
(FAR) for the B designated areas may exceed .35.Individual parcels may be developed at
a higher FAR and the FAR for hotel/motel, group housing and intermediate care facilities
(SIC Code 8052) shall not exceed .6. (Refer to Section 4.5, Deviations); however, the
overall FAR for the PUD for IC and B District areas will not exceed .3545.
4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in
whole or part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures:
1. Apparel and Accessory Stores (Groups 5611-5699)
2. Breweries (Group 2082)
3. Building Contractors (Groups 1521-1542), except for general contractors for
mobile home repair on site, modular housing and premanufactured housing
assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill
construction, and truck and automobile assembly plant construction.
4. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338, 7352,
7359-7389 except for industrial truck rental and leasing; plants, live: rental
and leasing; toilets, portable: rental and leasing; employment agencies,
except theatrical and motion picture; labor contractors (employment
agencies) model registries; labor pools; manpower pools; modeling service;
dogs, rental of: for protective service; automobile recovery service;
automobile repossession service; bartering services for businesses;
bondspersons; bottle exchanges; check validation service; contractors
disbursement control; filling pressure containers (aerosol) with hair spray,
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-2 August 31, 2016
insecticides, etc.; fire extinguishers, service of gas systems, contract
conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on
a contract or fee basis produce weighing service, not connected with
transportation; scrap steel cutting on a contract or fee basis; solvents
recovery service on a contract or fee basis; tobacco sheeting service on a
contract or fee basis)
5. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351)
6. Convenience Store, food market (Group 5411) only two (2) allowed within
the PUD and Gasoline Filling Station (Group 5541) only one (1) allowed
within the PUD.
7. Communications (Groups 4812-4899), not including major communication
towers related to cellular phone service, radio broadcasting, television
broadcasting, radar or telephone service.
8. Dance and Martial Arts Studios (Groups 7911 and 7999, including only
gymnastics and martial arts instruction)
9. Depository and Non-Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6163) including
automatic teller machines
10. Drugs and Medicines (Groups 2833-2836 except for adrenal derivatives:
bulk, uncompounded; barbituric acid and derivatives: bulk, uncompounded;
cocaine and derivatives; codeine and derivatives; gland derivatives: bulk,
uncompounded; mercury chlorides, U.S.P; mercury compounds, medicinal:
organic and inorganic; morphine and derivatives; opium derivatives)
11. Eating Places (Group 5812) not including stand alone drive-thru restaurants.
12. Educational Services (Groups 8249-8299 except construction equipment
operation schools; truck driving schools; automobile driving instruction;
survival schools; vocational counseling)
13. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services
(Groups 8711-8748 except chemical laboratories, commercial research;
automobile proving and testing grounds; metallurgical testing laboratories;
pollution testing, except automotive emissions testing; radiation dosimetry
laboratories; seed testing laboratories; veterinary testing laboratories)
14. Government Offices/Buildings (Groups 9111-9199, 9221, 9222, 9224-9229,
9311, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611, 9631-9661)
15. Hardware Stores (Group 5251)
16. Home Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Stores (Groups 5712-5736)
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-3 August 31, 2016
17. Hotels / Motels (Group 7011); not to exceed a maximum of 180 rooms for
the entire PUD. Only 1 hotel/motel is permitted within the PUD and it must
be located east of Goodlette-Frank Road and subject to additional building
development standards and setbacks identified in Section 4.4.Miscellaneous
Food Stores (Group 5499)
18. Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores (Group 5399)
19. Miscellaneous Retail (Groups 5912-5949 and 5992-5999, excluding used
merchandise stores, fireworks, gravestones, tombstones and monuments,
ice dealers, sales barns, and swimming pools; retail)
20. Paint/Glass and Wallpaper (Group 5231)
21. Personal Services (Groups 7215, excluding self-service or coin laundries,
7221-7251, 7291 and 7299, including only clothing rental, costume rental,
tanning salons and hair services)
22. Professional Offices: Travel Agencies (Group 4724); Insurance Agencies
(Group 6411); Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311-6399); Real Estate (Groups
6512-6515, 6517, 6519, 6531, 6541, 6552, 6553); Holding and Other
Investment Offices (Groups 6712-6799); Attorneys (Group 8111)
23. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991)
24. Retail Bakeries (Group 5461)
25. Security and Commodity Brokers (Groups 6211-6289)
26. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement
of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District.
B. Restricted Principal Uses
The following medical related uses must be located within 1/4 mile radius of the
hospital property boundary.
1. Group housing for the elderly limited to assisted living facilities,
independent living units, skilled nursing units and continuing care retirement
communities. A maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the
uses listed in Sections 3.3.B.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and 4.3.B.3. These uses are
limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road.
2. Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores (Group 5912) only one (1) drug store
allowed.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-4 August 31, 2016
3. Health Services, Medical Clinics and Offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), a
maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in
Sections 3.3.B.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and 4.3.B.3. SIC Code 8052 land uses are
limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road.
4. Medical Laboratories and research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071-
8099)
5. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement
of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District.
C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures
1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses
permitted in this district.
2. Retail and wholesale sales and/or display areas as accessory to the principal
use, not to exceed an area greater than forty percent (40%) of the gross floor
area of the permitted principal use.
D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing
Group housing uses described in Section 4.2.B.1A.15 shall provide the following
services and/or be subject to the following operational standards:
1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older.
2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents.
3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the
purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual
transportation services may be provided for the residents’ individualized
needs including but not limited to medical office visits.
4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist
residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also
be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning
for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at
the on-site clubhouse.
5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness
programs shall be provided for the residents.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-5 August 31, 2016
6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the
event of medical or other emergency.
7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical
impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes
and federal law and regulation.
4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 S.F.
B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT.
C. Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front Yard, Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank Roads: Fifty feet (50’)
2. Front Yard, Internal Roads: Thirty feet (30’)
3. Side Yard: Ten feet (10’)
Five feet (5’) to internal property line along the Pine Ridge canal drainage
easement and FP&L easement
4. Waterfront: Zero feet (0’) to bulkhead or rip-rap at top of bank, otherwise
twenty feet (20’)
5. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25’)
6. Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD for Properties
West of Goodlette-Frank Road:
a) Fifty feet (50’) for buildings up to thirty five feet (35’) in height.
b) Three additional feet (3’) for every one foot of building height over
thirty five feet (35’) adjoining residential districts.
7. For Properties East of Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum Building Setback
from Perimeter Boundary of PUD and from Public Roadways:
a) Immokalee Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50’) plus for any portion of
a building exceeding a zoned height of fifty feet (50’), that portion of
the building shall have its building setback increased at a 1:3 ratio
(i.e. one (1’) vertical foot of height for every three (3’) horizontal
feet); or
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-6 August 31, 2016
For any portion of a hotel that may be constructed on the B
designated tract at the southeast corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and
Immokalee Road, a minimum three hundred fifty foot (350’)
building setback from Immokalee Road.
b) Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50’) and for any
portion of a building exceeding a zoned height of fifty feet (50’), that
portion of the building shall have the setback increased at a 1:2 ratio
(i.e. one (1’) vertical foot of height for every two (2’) horizontal
feet); or
For any portion of a hotel on the B designated tract on the southeast
corner of Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road, the minimum
setback from Goodlette-Frank Road shall be seventy-five (75’)
regardless of height.
D. Maximum Height (Zoned): For parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road, three stories
over parking to a maximum of fifty feet (50’) except that no structure shall be
greater than thirty-five feet (35’), on property west of the Pine Ridge Drainage
Easement.
For Properties East of Goodlette-Frank Road:
a) The group housing for the elderly and intermediate care facilities constructed
on the B designated tract located at the southeast quadrant of the Goodlette-
Frank Road and Immokalee Road intersection shall have a zoned height of
sixty feet (60’) and an actual height of seventy feet (70’), except that a hotel
building or structure associated with this use may not exceed a zoned height
of seventy five feet (75’) and an actual height of eighty five (85’). Uses on
Tract 9 on the Master Plan shall be permitted to have a zoned height of
seventy five feet (75’) and an actual height of eighty five (85’)
b) The group housing for the elderly and intermediate care facilities constructed
on the easternmost B designated tract adjacent to Immokalee Road, as shown
on the Master Plan, shall have a zoned height of sixty feet (60’) and an actual
height of seventy feet (70’).
c) All other uses permitted pursuant to Section IV shall be limited to a
maximum zoned height of fifty (50’) and an actual height of sixty (60’).
E. Commercial design guidelines for facilities in the Business District shall be subject
to the provisions of Division 2.8. Architectural and Site Design Standards and Site
Design Standards for commercial buildings and projects.
F. Outside storage or display shall be permitted and shall be screened from all internal
and external public roadways with a fence at least seven feet in height above ground
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-7 August 31, 2016
level, or landscaping equivalent or combination thereof. Said fence, wall or
landscaped screen shall be opaque in design.
4.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS
1. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes a .45 floor area ratio
(FAR) for group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses,
including the intermediate care facility.
2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 Directory signs, which authorizes one
(1) directory sign to be located at the project entrance, to permit installation of the
directory sign on Immokalee Road east of Goodlette-Frank Road, not at the
project entry, but rather at a location between the project entry and Goodlette-
Frank Road.
3. Deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i(a), Preservation Standards, a
property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site
native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for
properties zoned commercial where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 2
acres in size to allow offsite preservation where the on-site preserve requirement
is more than 2 acres and where the off-site preserve proposed is less than 2 acres,
to permit an off-site preserve area of 1.35± acres. The area impacted by the
expansion of the ‘B’ District is located in the area east of Goodlette-Frank Road.
4.6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESTRICTIONS
The use of bald cypress trees to meet the landscape buffer requirements in section
2.19.A.2 (and B.2) are prohibited.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 5-1 August 31, 2016
SECTION V
PRESERVE AREA
5.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for
the area within Creekside Commerce Park, designated on the Master Plan, as Preserve
Area.
5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Areas designated as Preserve Area on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate
natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and
functions.
5.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water
used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Uses and Structures
1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails).
2. Water management structures.
3. Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, permitted in accordance with
the LDC and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing
Examiner determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area.
5.4 PRESERVE DISTRICT PRESERVATION EASEMENT
A non-exclusive preservation easement or tract is required by LDC Section 3.2.8.4.7.3.
for preservation lands included in the Preserve Area. The Developer, its successor or
assign shall be responsible for the control and maintenance of lands within the Preserve
Area. Exact location/boundary of the Preserve Area will be determined during the
development permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District,
Army Corps of Engineers, and Collier County.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 5-2 August 31, 2016
5.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS
The proposed native vegetation retention areas, depicted on the Creekside Commerce
Park Master Plan, are intended for meeting the native vegetation requirements of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments
may be made to the location of the preservations areas at the time of preliminary plat or
site development plan approval. If adjustments are needed, per the Collier County LDC
the Developer will have the option to increase the preservation in another area, enhance
and preserve another area, or provide increased native landscape per the Collier County
LDC. The proposed preservation areas, including 2.91.37 acres of wetlands and 4.14.28
acres of uplands, depicted on the Creekside Commerce Park master plan, are areas where
the native vegetation requirements may be met on-site as set forth in the Collier County
LDC. An area 0.68± acres in size shall be created as on-site native preservation, adjacent
to the existing “PU” preserve located west of Goodlette-Frank Road. The developer or
successors shall provide for a minimum of 1.35 acres of native vegetation preservation
offsite. The off-site preservation area shall be identified at the time of Development
Order approval, which proposes impacts to the existing preserve area(s).
ORDINANCE NO. 16 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 2006-50, THE CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK
COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPDD), AS
AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE
FOOTAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BY
1669000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 716,000 SQUARE FEET OF
GROSS FLOOR AREA OF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE USES AND
INCREASING THE ACREAGE FROM 41.6 TO 49.90 NET ACRES; BY
AMENDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT TO INCREASE THE
ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF FLOOR AREA FROM 260,000
SQUARE FEET TO 292,000 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING FROM
200,000 SQUARE FEET TO 242,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES
AND FROM 60,000 TO 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USES; BY
AMENDING THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE DISTRICT TO
ALLOW PARCELS WEST OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD TO
INCREASE THE ZONED HEIGHT FROM 35 FEET TO 50 FEET
EXCEPT FOR TRACT 5 ON THE MASTER PLAN WHICH SHALL
HAVE A ZONED HEIGHT OF 185 AND ACTUAL HEIGHT OF 205
FEET; BY AMENDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ALLOW
TRACT 9 ON THE MASTER PLAN EAST OF GOODLETTE FRANK
ROAD TO INCREASE THE ZONED HEIGHT TO 75 FEET AND
ACTUAL HEIGHT TO 85 FEET; BY INCREASING THE OVERALL
FLOOR AREA RATIO FROM .35 TO .45; BY REDUCING THE
PRESERVE REQUIREMENT AND BY ADDING A DEVIATION TO
ALLOW A PORTION OF THE PRESERVE TO BE OFF-SITE; BY
ADDING A DEVIATION TO ALLOW TRACT 5 ON THE MASTER
PLAN TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE COUNTY'S ARCHITECTURAL
DEVIATION PROCESS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND BOTH EAST AND WEST OF
GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 106 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. [PUDA-PL20160001865]
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance Number 06-50, the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit
Development (the "PUD"); and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance Number 13-23, which amended the PUD; and
(16 -CPS -01581] 30
Creekside Commerce Park CPUD 1 of 2
PUDA-PL20160001865 — 9/2/16
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2016, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance Number 16-05, which further amended the PUD; and
WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.,
and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates representing Arthrex, Inc., petitioned the
Board of County Commissioners to amend the CPUD.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE: Amendment to the CPUD Document of Ordinance No. 2006-50, as
amended
The CPUD Document attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 2006-50, as amended, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
See Exhibit "A", 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
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A — CPUD Document
[16 -CPS -01581] 30
Creekside Commerce Park CPUD 2 of 2
PUDA-PL20160001865 — 9/2/16
day of , 2016.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DONNA FIALA, Chairwoman
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED FOR
BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP
Exhibit A
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK
A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
106± Acres Located in Section 27
Township 48 South, Range 25 East
Collier County, Florida
PREPARED FOR:
BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP
2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105
PREPARED BY:
WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC.
3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34105
YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A.
801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34101
AMENDED DECEMBER 2005 BY:
Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134
ROETZEL AND ANDRESS, L.P.A.
850 Park Shore Drive, 3�d Floor, Naples, Florida 34103
AMENDED MAY 2012 BY:
Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134
COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A.
Northern Trust Bank Building
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103
AMENDED AUGUST 2015 and JULY 2016 BY:
Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134
COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A.
Northern Trust Bank Building
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103
Words struek-t#reugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment September 2, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE
SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, &
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
SECTION II COMMERCE PARK DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Purpose
2.2 General Description Of The Park and Proposed Land Uses
2.3 Compliance With County Ordinances
2.4 Community Development District
2.5 Land Uses
2.6 Lake Siting
2.7 Fill Storage
2.8 Use Of Right -Of -Way
2.9 Sales Office and Construction Office
2.10 Changes and Amendments To PUD Document Or PUD Master Plan
2.11 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Phasing
2.12 Open Space and Native Vegetation Retention Requirements
2.13 Surface Water Management
2.14 Environmental
2.15 Utilities
2.16 Transportation
2.17 Common Area Maintenance
2.18 Design Guidelines and Standards
2.19 Landscape Buffers, Berms, Fences and Walls
2.20 Signage
2.21 General Permitted Uses
SECTION III INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE DISTRICT
SECTION IV BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION V PRESERVE AREA
EXHIBIT A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, LOCATION MAP
(WMB&P File No. RZ-255A)
EXHIBIT B CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT B-1 CROSS SECTIONS (ENLARGED)
Words swuek- tht�e� are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment i September 2, 2016
3-1
4-1
5-1
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The purpose of this section is to express the intent of the Barron Collier Partnership, hereinafter
referred to as Barron Collier or the Developer, to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on
106± acres of land located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Creekside Commerce Park. The
development of Creekside Commerce Park will be in substantial compliance with the planning
goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The
development will be consistent with the policies and land development regulations adopted
thereunder of the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element and other applicable
regulations for the following reasons:
The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use District as identified on the Future Land
Use Map which allows certain industrial and commercial uses. The Urban designation also
allows support medical facilities, offices, clinics, treatment, research and rehabilitative
centers and pharmacies provided they are located within 1/4 mile of the property boundary
of an existing or approved hospital or medical center. The Creekside Commerce Park PUD
is located within 1/4 mile of the North Collier Hospital. The 2016 petition request is to add
166,000 square feet to the I/C District and 32,000 square feet to the B District. All
additional square footage approved in the October 2016 Ordinance amendment will be
medical related uses, and will be on Tracts that are within orap rtially within '/4 mile of the
North Collier Hospital propertL.
2. The existing Industrial zoning is considered consistent with the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) as provided for by Policy 5.9 and 5.11 of the FLUE.
3. The FLUE Urban -Industrial District allows for expansion of the industrial land use provided
the rezone is in the form of a PUD, the site is adjacent to existing land designated or zoned
industrial the land use is compatible with adjacent land uses and the necessary infrastructure
is provided or in place. Creekside Commerce Park has expanded the industrial land use
accordingly.
4. The FLUE Urban -Industrial District requires the uses along the boundaries of the project to
be transitional. Creekside Commerce Park has included transitional uses accordingly.
5. Creekside Commerce Park is compatible with and complementary to existing and future
surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE.
6. Improvements are planned to be in substantial compliance with applicable land development
regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE.
7. The development of Creekside Commerce Park will result in an efficient and economical
extension of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.H and L of the
FLUE.
Words k thr are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment ii September 2, 2016
Creekside Commerce Park is a master planned, deed -restricted commerce park and is
planned to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination as set forth in the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC), Planned Unit Development District.
9. This master planned park will incorporate elements from the existing Industrial, Business
Park and Industrial PUD sections of the LDC.
Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment iii September 2, 2016
SHORT TITLE
This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE".
Words struek throu are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment iv September 2, 2016
SECTION I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of
Creekside Commerce Park, and to describe the existing condition of the property
proposed to be developed.
1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
being more particularly described as follows;
COMMENCING at the northwest corner of said Section 27;
thence along the north line of said Section 27 South 89°45'21" East 1869.61 feet;
thence leaving said line South 00°14'39" West 125.00 feet to a point on the south right of
way line of Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel
herein described;
thence along said right of way line in the following Six (6) described courses;
1) South 89°45'21" East 485.99 feet;
2) South 00° 14'39" West 10.00 feet;
3) South 89°45'21" East 150.19 feet;
4) South 89°48'33" East 716.81 feet;
5) North 05°34'33" West 10.05 feet;
6) South 89048'33" East 486.21 feet to a point on the west right of way line of Goodlette
Road as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 58, Public Records of Collier County, Florida;
thence along said line South 05°33'48" East 1767.02 feet;
thence leaving said line South 89°20'53" West 51.18 feet;
thence North 23°55'53" West 13.07 feet;
thence northwesterly, 30.71 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the
northeast, having a radius of 80.00 feet, through a central angle of 21°59'52" and being
subtended by a chord which bears North 12°55'57" West 30.53 feet;
thence North 05°00'53" West 31.56 feet;
thence North 36°19'20" West 32.02 feet;
thence North 56°04'35" West 3 5. 11 feet;
thence North 80'39'15" West 32.53 feet;
thence North 88'39'12" West 97.78 feet;
thence North 86°04'40" West 45.79 feet;
thence North 89°49'48" West 132.77 feet;
thence North 69040'10" West 37.23 feet;
thence South 89°20'53" West 142.47 feet;
thence South 84°59'26" West 24.66 feet;
thence South 74°56'50" West 121.32 feet;
thence South 79°49'59" West 45.93 feet;
thence westerly and northwesterly, 45.51 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the northeast, having a radius of 66.00 feet, through a central angle of 39'30'16" and
Words strHek thre are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 1-1 September 2, 2016
being subtended by a chord which bears North 80°24'53" West 44.61 feet to a point of
compound curvature;
thence northwesterly, 52.92 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the
southwest, having a radius of 150.00 feet, through a central angle of 20°12'57" and being
subtended by a chord which bears North 70'46'13 " West 52.65 feet;
thence North 80°52'42" West 36.59 feet;
thence westerly and southwesterly, 46.18 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the southeast, having a radius of 80.00 feet, through a central angle of 33'04'14" and
being subtended by a chord which bears South 82°35'11 " West 45.54 feet to a point of
compound curvature;
thence southwesterly and westerly, 38.16 feet along the are of a circular curve concave to
the northwest, having a radius of 60.00 feet, through a central angle of 36'26'19" and
being subtended by a chord which bears South 84'16'14" West 37.52 feet to a point of
compound curvature;
thence westerly and northwesterly, 68.85 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the southwest, having a radius of 305.00 feet, through a central angle of 12°55'59" and
being subtended by a chord which bears North 83°58'36" West 68.70 feet;
thence South 89°33'25" West 18.36 feet;
thence South 89'39'19" West 71.63 feet;
thence North 89°34'56" West 36.03 feet;
thence South 86°06'41" West 42.94 feet;
thence South 83'44'16" West 26.23 feet;
thence South 51 °01' 13" West 27.49 feet;
thence South 33°25'50" West 19.95 feet;
thence South 15°40'05" West 20.54 feet;
thence South 10°54'39" West 34.64 feet;
thence South 89'20'14" West 101.06 feet;
thence North 10046'06" East 101.42 feet;
thence North 89°20'53" East 65.45 feet;
thence North 00°39'07" West 100.64 feet;
thence South 89°20'53" West 503.78 feet;
thence North 00°39'07" West 27.71 feet;
thence North 72°58'55" West 131.30 feet;
thence North 02°08'56" West 1473.29 feet to a point on the south right of way line of
said Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein
described;
Containing 69.48 acres more or less;
Subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Bearings are assumed and based on the north line of said Section 27 being South
89°49'40" East.
All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
being more particularly described as follows;
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 27;
Words 6tFuekthFeugh are deleted, words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 1-2 September 2, 2016
thence along the east line of said Section 27, South 01 °09'43" East 125.00 feet to a point
on the south right of way line of Immokalee Road (SA, 846) and the POINT OF
BEGINNING of the parcel herein described;
thence continue along said east line South 01'09'43" East 1189.62 feet;
thence leaving said line South 89°48'50" West 677.35 feet;
thence South 05°35'39" East 886.02 feet;
thence South 89°48'50" West 400.00 feet to a point on the easterly right of way line of
Goodlette Frank Road as Recorded in Plat Book 13, page 58, Public records of Collier
County, Florida;
thence along said line North 05°35'39" West 2088.10 feet to a point of the south right of
way line of said Immokalee Road (S.R. 846);
thence along said line South 89°49'40" East 1168.55 feet;
thence continue along said line South 89°12'58" East 1.85 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING of the parcel herein described;
Containing 38.9 acres more or less;
Subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Bearings are assumed and based on the north line of said Section 27 being South
89°46'26" East.
LESS
A PORTION OF TRACTS "R" AND "L1" CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT
ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 AT PAGES 57 THROUGH 58 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHWESTERLYMOST CORNER OF TRACT "R" (CREEKSIDE WAY)
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29
AT PAGES 57 THROUGH 58 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°45'00" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD FOR A DISTANCE OF 249.45 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH
00025'51" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 107.22 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 60°02'56"
EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.20 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 82°32'14" EAST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 119.17 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF TRACT "Ll" OF SAID
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE, ALSO BEING THE WES LINE OF
LOT 3 OF SAID CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE; THENCE RUN
SOUTH 00007'39" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 111.93 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID TRACT "R'; THENCE RUN
NORTH 89058'01" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF
456.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID TRACT "R";
THENCE RUN NORTH 02019'57" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A
DISTANCE OF 294.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 2.32
ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Words s"eItlue t are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 1-3 September 2, 2016
1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The subject property is currently under the equitable ownership or control of Barron
Collier Partnership, or its assigns, whose address is 2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples,
FL 34105.
1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
A. The project site is located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and
is generally bordered on the west by Agriculturally zoned and developed
property; on the north, across Immokalee Road by office and medical (North
Collier Hospital) PUD zoned and developed property; on the east by Medical
Office Park currently under development, County Park and County Wastewater
Treatment Facility; and on the south by PUD and County Wastewater Treatment
Facility. The location of the site is shown on Exhibit A Aerial Photograph,
Location Map.
B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of PUD application is
I (Industrial) and A (Agricultural).
C. Elevations within the site are approximately 7.5 to 9 feet-NGVD. Per FEMA
Firm Map Panels No. 1200670193D, dated June 3, 1986, the Creekside
Commerce Park property is located within Zones "AE -11" of the FEMA flood
insurance rate. ' showil on Exhibit G.
D. The soil types on the site generally include Riviera limestone substratum,
Copeland fine sand, Pineda fine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Myakka fine sand,
Basinger fine sand, Riveria fine sand, Ft. Drum and Malabar fine sand, and
Satellite fine sand. s show!i On
F—xhi it n
E. Prior to development, vegetation on the site primarily consists of active croplands
and small amounts of pine flatwoods. An isolated wetland system is located
along the south side of Immokalee Road west of Goodlette-Frank Road. This
wetland consists primarily of Brazilian pepper that surrounds a small willow area.
The wetland on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road consists primarily of
cabbage palms. A portion of the historic water course within this wetland has
been channelized. Brazilian pepper has infested the northern part of this wetland.
L 1 detailed VL .. Exhibitshown eii
F. The project site is located within the Pine Ridge Canal and West Branch
Cocohatchee River sub -basins, as depicted within the Collier County Drainage
Atlas (July, 1995). The r ptual Ste ate N o N4aste Plaii is
shov,4i on Exhibit 141.
Words st-ruek thr-e are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 1-4 September 2, 2016
1.5 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
Creekside Commerce Park does not meet the minimum thresholds for a Development of
Regional Impact (DRI), pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes, 49972016, in that it
is at or below 80% of all numerical thresholds in the guidelines and standards set forth
therein.
Words sk threugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 1-5 September 2, 2016
SECTION II
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
2.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for
Creekside Commerce Park (park), and to identify relationships to applicable County
ordinances, policies, and procedures.
2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK AND PROPOSED LAND USES
A. Creekside Commerce Park will consist of predominately industrial, warehouse,
wholesale, financial institutions, business and office uses, with limited amounts of
retail uses. Creekside Commerce Park shall establish project -wide guidelines and
standards to ensure a high and consistent level of quality for proposed features
and facilities.
B. The Mastef Plan is iflustfated g .
Its 225B}7 -A Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreages is
shown on the Master plan. The location, size, and configuration of individual
tracts shall be determined at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval
with minor adjustments at the time of Final Plat approval, in accordance with
Section 3.2.7.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC).
2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES
A. Regulations for development of Creekside Commerce Park shall be in accordance
with the contents of this PUD Ordinance, and to the extent they are not
inconsistent with this PUD Ordinance, applicable sections of the LDC and Collier
County Growth Management Plan which are in effect at the time of issuance of
any development order. Where this PUD Ordinance does not provide
developmental standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC
that is otherwise applicable shall apply to which said regulations relate.
B. Unless otherwise defined herein, or as necessarily implied by context, the
definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in
effect at the time of development order application.
C. Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to the
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Division 3.15 of the LDC.
D. All conditions imposed herein or as represented on the Creekside Commerce Park
Master Plan are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land
may be developed.
Words str*ek thf�e� are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 2-1 September 2, 2016
E. The Site Development Plans Division of the LDC (Article 3, Division 3.3) shall
apply to Creekside Commerce Park, except where an exemption is set forth herein
or otherwise granted pursuant to LDC Section 3.3.4.
F. The Developer shall submit to the County an annual PUD monitoring report in
accordance with LDC Section 2.7.3.6.
2.4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
A. The Developer may elect to establish a Community Development District (CDD)
pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, 1997, to provide and maintain
infrastructure and community facilities needed to serve the park. A CDD would
constitute a timely, efficient, effective, responsive and economic way to ensure
the provision of facilities and infrastructure for the proposed development. Such
infrastructure as may be constructed, managed and financed by the CDD shall be
subject to, and shall not be inconsistent with, the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and all applicable ordinances dealing with planning and
permitting of Creekside Commerce Park.
B. The land area is amenable to infrastructure provision by a district that has the
powers set forth in the charter of a Community Development District under
Section 190.006 through 190.041, Florida Statutes. Such a district is a legitimate
alternative available both to the County and to the landowner for the timely and
sustained provision of quality infrastructure under the terms and conditions of
County development approval.
2.5 LAND USES
A. The location of land uses are shown on the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit B. Changes
and variations in building tracts, location and acreage of these uses shall be
permitted at preliminary subdivision plat approval, preliminary site development
plan approval and final site development plan approval to accommodate utilities,
topography, vegetation, and other site and market conditions, subject to the
provisions of Section 2.7.3.5. of the Collier County LDC. The specific location
and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be
determined at the time of site development plan approval.
B. Roads and other infrastructure may be either public, private or a combination of
public and private, depending on location, design and purpose. The request for a
road to be public shall be made by the Developer at the time of final subdivision
plat approval. The Developer or its assignees shall be responsible for maintaining
the roads, streets, drainage, common areas, water and sewer improvements where
such systems are not dedicated to the County. Standards for roads shall be in
compliance with the applicable provisions of the County Code regulating
subdivisions, unless otherwise approved during subdivision approval. The
Words tel- t reugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 2-2 September 2, 2016
Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to Code design standards in
accordance with Section 3.2.7.2. of the LDC.
2.6 LAKE SITING
A. As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, lakes have been preliminary sited. The goal
of this Master Plan is to achieve an overall aesthetic character for the park, to
permit optimum use of the land, and to increase the efficiency of the water
management network. Fill material from lakes is planned to be utilized within the
park; however, excess fill material may be utilized off-site. The volume of
material to be removed shall be limited to ten percent of the calculated excavation
volume to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. If the applicant wishes to take more
off-site, a commercial excavation permit will be required. Final lake area
determination shall be in accordance with the South Florida Water Management
District stormwater criteria and Section 3.5.7. of the LDC.
Setbacks: Excavations shall be located so that the control elevation shall
adhere to the following minimum setback requirements, subject to
approval of County staff at time of final construction plan approval:
a) Twenty feet (20') from right-of-way of internal roads. The roads
will be designed to (AASHTO) road standards and shall
incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank
slope, road cross sections, and need for barriers.
b) Forty feet (40') from Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road
rights-of-way. Perimeter property lines will have a setback of
twenty feet (20'). The roads will be designed to (AASHTO) road
standards and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment,
travel speed, bank slope, road cross sections and need for barriers.
2.7 FILL STORAGE
A. Fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Creekside
Commerce Park PUD. Fill material generated from properties owned or leased by
the Developer may be transported and stockpiled within areas which have been
disturbed. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, the Developer shall notify the
Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator per Section
3.2.8.3.6. of the LDC. The following standards shall apply:
Stockpile maximum height: Thirty-five feet (35')
2. Fill storage areas in excess of five feet (5) in height shall be separated
from developed areas by fencing, excavated water bodies or other physical
barriers if the side slope of the stockpile is steeper than 4 to 1 (i.e. 3 to 1).
Words strue1through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 2-3 September 2, 2016
a) Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with LDC
Division 3.7.
2.8 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Utilization of lands within all park rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative entrance
ways, and signage shall be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the
Developer and the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator
for engineering and safety considerations during the development review process.
2.9 SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE
Sales offices, construction offices, and other uses and structures related to the promotion
and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall
be permitted principal uses throughout Creekside Commerce Park. These uses may be
either wet or dry facilities. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Section
2.6.33.4., Section 3.2.6.3.6. and Division 3.3 of the LDC, with the exception that the
temporary use permit shall be valid through the life of the project with no extension of
the temporary use required. These uses may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste
disposal subject to permitting under F.A.C. 10D-6 and may use potable water or
irrigation wells.
2.10 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER
PLAN
A. Changes and amendments may be made to this PUD Ordinance or PUD Master
Plan as provided in Section 2.7.3.5. of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements
as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of
development or permit application required by the LDC.
B. The Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator shall be
authorized to approve minor changes and refinements to the Creekside Commerce
Park Master Plan upon written request of the Developer or his assignee.
C. The following limitations shall apply to such requests:
1) The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier
County Growth Management Plan and the Creekside Commerce Park
PUD document.
2) The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change
pursuant to Section 2.7.3.5.1, of the LDC.
3) The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with external
adjacent land uses and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land
Words struek threu are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 2-4 September 2, 2016
uses, water management facilities, and conservation areas within or
external to the PUD.
D. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements:
1) Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, or other water management
facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South
Florida Water Management District and Collier County.
2) Internal realignment of rights -of -ways.
3) Reconfiguration of parcels per Section 5.5 of this PUD.
E. Minor changes and refinements as described above shall be reviewed by
appropriate Collier County staff to ensure that said changes and refinements are
otherwise in compliance with all applicable County Ordinances and regulations
prior to the Community Development and Environmental Services
Administrator's consideration for approval.
F. Approval by the Community Development and Environmental Services
Administrator of a minor change or refinement may occur independently from
and prior to any application for Subdivision or Site Development Plan approval,
however such approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or
implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all other
necessary County permits and approvals.
2.11 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT PHASING
Submission, review, and approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plats for the park may be
accomplished in phases to correspond with the planned development of the property.
2.12 OPEN SPACE AND NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS
The PUD will fully comply with all sections of the LDC and meet the requirements of the
Growth Management Plan relating to open space and retention of native vegetation.
2.13 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD), Chapters 40E-4 and 4-E-40, this project shall be designed for a storm event
of 3 -day duration and 25 -year return frequency. The lake originally approved as Lake L-
1, Creekside Unit I Plat, shall continue to be operated and maintained in accordance with
the approved plat and approved South Florida Water Management District Permit.
Words strue1threugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-5 September 2, 2016
2.14 ENVIRONMENTAL
Reseufee Permitting (ERP) Rules, and shall f6fthef be subje-t t- and appr-eval-by
Vegetation shall be retained in accordance with the criteria established in the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Section 3.05.00 of the
LDC, except as provided for in Deviation for off-site native vegetation preservation in
Section 4.5.3 of this PUD Ordinance.
2.15 UTILITIES
All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the
continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable
regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested.
2.16 TRANSPORTATION
A. The Developer shall provide appropriate left and/or right turn lanes on Immokalee
Road and Goodlette-Frank Road at the main park entrances. Such turn lanes shall
be in place prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for a use that
utilizes the perspective/associated entrance.
B. There shall be a full access intersection at the park's southern entrance on
Goodlette Frank Road. When justified by traffic warrants, this intersection shall
be signalized, notwithstanding its proximity to Immokalee Road.
C. Future access points to Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank Roads are those shown
on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan.
D. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided by the Developer at the park's main
entrance in conjunction with the development of this entrance.
E. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance
92-22, as amended.
F. The Developer shall provide the appropriate easements or reserve right of way so
that the southerly access road west of Goodlette Frank Road may be
interconnected to the properties to the west of Creekside Commerce Park.
G. The Developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of
traffic signals at any project access when deemed warranted by Collier County.
The signal shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County.
H. The Developer agrees to complete construction of the segment of internal
roadway that connects Goodlette-Frank Road to the UC parcel (herein called
Words sk through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 2-6 September 2, 2016
"southern parcel") that is west of Goodlette Road and abuts Pelican Marsh prior
to the first of the following to occur:
1) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the "southern parcel";
2) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the second business parcel to
be developed west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement;
3) Within 3 years of approval of this PUD; or
4) Within 9 months of obtaining "grant" money or other funds for
construction of such infrastructure from an outside source.
I. The I/C parcels west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement and immediately north
of the south road shall connect for service and employee access at the time that
the south road is extended to a point that they may connect.
J. The Developer agrees to provide the County with an update of the Transportation
Impact Statement (TIS) at the time of submittal of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat
or Site Development Plan.
K. The Goodlette-Frank Road southernmost access to the I/C parcel east of
Goodlette-Frank Road shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access.
L. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses both primary and
ancillary may not exceed 1-7-542,053 PM Peak Hour, two-way trips.
2.17 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE
Most common area maintenance will be provided by the CDD or by a Property Owner's
Association (POA). The CDD or the POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the
operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater
management systems and reserves serving Creekside Commerce Park, in accordance with
any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District.
2.18 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage
ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or
redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set
forth in the LDC, Section 2.2.20.
B. Creekside Commerce Park is planned as a functionally interrelated business park
under unified control. The Developer will establish community -wide guidelines
and standards to ensure a high level of quality for both the common areas and the
individual parcel developments.
Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 2-7 September 2, 2016
C. These guidelines will serve as a control for individual parcel development, and be
referred to as The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for
Creekside Commerce Park. The level of quality defined in this document is
directed towards the creation of an attractive business environment, and these
standards are the basis for evaluation of projects submitted for review to the
Property Association's Architectural and Landscaping Committee, referred to as
the ALC. The standards in this document will include criteria for site planning,
architectural design, lighting, landscaping, and graphics and signage.
D. The specific design guidelines will act as supplemental standards to the
requirements of this Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and other County
codes, but in no way supersede them.
1. Common Areas
The master design of the park's entries and signage, streetscapes, and open space
areas will form a harmonious framework that visually links the entire park
together. This unified appearance will enhance the image of the entire
community. Internal roadways will provide efficient vehicular circulation with
streetscapes that create pleasant neighborhood environments. Streetscape plans
will be designed to establish a hierarchy of landscape improvements appropriate
in scale and character with the function of the street and adjacent land uses. Along
these streetscapes a pedestrian walkway system will be established to link each
project with the overall community.
2. Individual Projects
A. Site Planning: Each individual parcel project will provide a visually
appealing, articulated, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and
vehicles from the street to the site and from the site to the buildings
themselves. The orientation of a building or structure upon a site
will not only reflect the project's functional need, but will also be
responsive to the individual parcel's characteristics and be sensitive
to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community.
B. Architectural standards: The objective of the architectural standards
will be to promote the creation of an attractive, value -apparent
business environment. Design elements throughout a project must
be consistent with the nature of the chosen style and building
materials selected. Project design should endeavor to adhere to the
classical principles of design and avoid cliches, overly complex or
garish motifs, while seeking to invoke a "timeless" quality.
Words strue1- threugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-8 September 2, 2016
C. Lighting: The guidelines for lighting will establish a continuity of
design for all lighting in the park which is consistent with the overall
visual impression of the park.
D. Landscaping: The purpose of landscape design guidelines within
individual projects is to guide development toward harmonious and
visually pleasing landscape that is cohesive with the overall master
landscape plan. The Creekside landscape concept will have a
naturalistic theme. Similar to the overall project's plant palette,
individual sites will be dominated with plants that are native, xeric,
or naturalized within Southwest Florida. Landscape designs will
create a coherent theme which emphasizes plant material as a
primary unifying element.
1. Landscape elements along public R.O.W.s will be
complimentary to streetscape landscaping. Parcel entries will
be designed to harmonize with adjacent streetscape
landscaping, and clearly accentuate, the parcel entry.
2. Individual parking lots will be screened from the roadways as
much as possible, without obscuring views of the building
entrances. In addition, plant materials used around main
entrances of buildings will visually cue visitors to—their
location.
E. Graphics/signage: The guidelines serve to provide continuity of
design for all signage in the park which is consistent with the overall
visual impression of the park. Parcel signage serves the
identification needs of the individual tenants and user.
2.19 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS
Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use
throughout Creekside Commerce Park. Required buffer treatments shall terminate at
entrances to accommodate entrance treatments and at lakes to accommodate views into
the park. The following standards shall apply:
A. Landscape buffers contiguous to Immokalee Road R.O.W. will be installed at the
time of subdivision improvement per construction phase and will have the
following characteristics:
1) Minimum width of 20'-0", measured from the R.O.W.
2) Adjacent to Business District type uses within the Business District, trees will
be native, xeric, or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25' on center (O.C.),
planted at an initial height of 13'-14' overall (O.A) with a 6' spread. In
Words struek th are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-9 September 2, 2016
addition, a continuous 24" high shrub hedge shall be provided within the 20'
buffer.
B. Landscape buffers contiguous to Goodlette-Frank Road R.O.W. will be installed
at the time of subdivision improvement per development phase and will have the
following characteristics:
1) Minimum width of 20'-0", measured from the R.O.W.
2) Adjacent to Business District type uses within the Business and
Industrial/Commerce (I/C) Districts, trees will be native, xeric, or naturalized
canopy trees, spaced at 25' O.C., planted at an initial height of 12' O.A., with
a 6' spread. At the time of individual lot improvements, hedges will be placed
at parking lot edges to satisfy the requirements of LDC Section 2.4.7.4.
3) Adjacent to industrial type uses within the Industrial/Commerce District, trees
will be native, xeric or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25' O.C., planted at
an initial height of 12' O.A, with a 6' spread. Trees will be placed on a berm,
3 feet high and supplemented with a 5 foot high hedge consisting of but not
limited to the following plant material: coco plum, vibumam, ficus. The
intent will be to obtain 80% opacity within one year of planting for travelers
on Goodlette-Frank Road.
C. Landscape buffers surrounding the perimeter of the park will be installed at the
time of subdivision improvement per construction phase. The buffers are
referenced on Exhibit B, and proceed in a clockwise direction from the northeast
corner of the project as follows:
1) The landscape buffer along the eastern most property boundary, north of the
preserve area, as depicted on Exhibit B, shall consist of an Alternative "A"
type buffer. Any preservation areas within this buffer may be credited toward
buffering requirements.
2) The preserve area along the balance of the eastern most property boundary
will serve as the buffer between uses.
3) The Developer will provide a five feet (5') wide Alternative "A" type buffer
with trees planted fifty feet (50') on center between the business use and the
preserve/lake area, as depicted on Exhibit B.
4) The Developer will provide a five feet (5') wide Alternative "A" type
landscape buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50') on center along the eastern
property boundary contiguous to the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant.
5) The landscape buffer along the southern most property boundary, east of
Goodlette-Frank Road, shall be a five feet (5') wide Alternative "A" type
Words stmel-tlre� are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 2-10 September 2, 2016
buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50') on center. An opaque hedge six feet
(6') high will be planted to supplement the existing oak tree buffer planted by
the County at the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant,
6) The existing landscape berm/buffer from Goodlette Frank Road to the west
side of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement will be supplemented as follows: a
type "A" buffer along the proposed lake; and the remaining area westward of
the lake will be supplemented to consist of 50 sabal palms, 8'-14' O.A. and 4
Ficus nitida 12'-13' O.A. and 6'-8' wide; locations to be coordinated with the
adjacent property owner.
7) The Developer will provide a ninety percent (90%) opaque landscape buffer
and berm between the I/C District and the Pelican Marsh PUD from the west
side of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement to the existing berm to the west,
that approximates the existing Pelican Marsh berm/buffer. This buffer will be
installed concurrent with any I/C construction west of the Pine Ridge
Drainage Easement. The buffer shall meet ninety percent (90%) opacity
within one (1) year of planting.
8) The Developer will supplement with additional trees the buffer along the
remaining portion of the southern property line westward to achieve a ninety
percent (90%) opaque buffer. This buffer will be installed concurrent with
any I/C construction west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement.
9) The landscape buffer between the I/C District and the adjacent Agricultural
District along the southern portion of the western property line will be an
Alternative "A" type buffer.
10) The landscape buffer between the R.O.W. and the adjacent Agricultural
District to the west will be an Alternative "A" type buffer and be incorporated
into the R.O.W.
D. Maximum fence or wall height internal to the PUD: Twelve feet (12').
E. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls will be constructed along the
perimeter of the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundary concurrent with
subdivision and site development construction phase, except where noted in this
document.
F. Sidewalks, water management systems, drainage structures, and utilities may be
allowed in landscape buffers pursuant to review and approval of the Development
Services Administrator.
G. Landscape berms located within the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundary
and contiguous to a property line and/or right-of-way line may be constructed
Words k through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 2-11 September 2, 2016
such that the toe of slope is located on the property line and/or encroaches into the
right-of-way line when approved by the applicable owner or agency.
2.20 SIGNAGE
A. GENERAL
1) Pursuant to Section 2.5.5.2.3.7. of the LDC, the following conditions provide
for the required comprehensive sign plan for the Creekside Commerce Park
2) Each platted parcel shall be considered a separate parcel of land.
3) Signs and decorative landscaped entrance features within a County dedicated
right-of-way, shall require a right -of way permit subject to the review and
approval of the County.
4) All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight line obstructions.
B. PARK ENTRY SIGNS
1) Major park entry signs shall be located as depicted on Exhibit B. Each sign
will not exceed 160 square feet in size on any side and signs will be no longer
than 25 feet in length and 8 feet in height.
2) Minor park entry signs shall be located as depicted Exhibit B. Each minor
monument sign will not exceed 100 square feet in size on any side. Minor
monument signs will be no larger than 20 feet in length and 8 feet in height.
C. INTERNAL SIGNS
1) Directional or identification signs are allowed within the business park. Such
signs may be used to identify the location or direction of approved uses such
as sales centers, information centers, etc. Individual signs may be a maximum
of 4 square feet per side in size, or signs maintaining a common architectural
theme may be combined to form a menu board with a maximum size of 25
square feet per side, and a maximum height of 8 feet. No building permit is
required unless such signs are combined to form a menu board.
2) Grand Opening signs: The Developer or parcel owner may display an on-site
grand opening sign not exceeding 32 square feet on a side, and not exceeding
64 square feet total. Banner signs shall be anchored and may be displayed on-
site for a period not exceeding 14 days within the first three months that the
Developer/occupant is open for business.
D. USER SIGNS
Words swuek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-12 September 2, 2016
1) Wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs: One wall, mansard, canopy or
awning sign may be permitted for each single -occupancy facility, or for each
establishment in a multiple -occupancy facility. Corner units within multiple -
occupancy facilities, or multi -frontage single -occupancy facilities shall be
allowed two signs, but such signs shall not be combined for the purpose of
placing the combined area on one wall. However, the combined area of those
signs shall not exceed the maximum allowable display area for signs by this
ordinance.
a. The maximum allowable display area for signs may not be more than 15
percent of the total square footage of the visual facade of the building to
which the sign will be attached and may not, in any case, exceed 200
square feet in area for any sign.
2) Monument and Pole signs: One (1) monument or pole sign is permitted for
each lot or parcel for each external and internal road frontage(s).
a. Internal road frontage setbacks: A minimum of fifteen feet (15') from the
edge of pavement. Signs may encroach within the right-of-way subject to
maintaining safe site distance triangles as per Section 2.4.4.16. of the LDC
and when approved by the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator and applicable utility.
b. External road frontage setbacks: Pole signs shall be setback from any
external right-of-way in accordance with the applicable section of the
LDC. Monument signs may be permitted closer to the right-of-way
subject to maintaining safe site distance triangles as per Section 2.4.4.16.
of the LDC and when approved by the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator and applicable utility.
c. Spot or floodlights may be permitted provided said light shines only on the
signs or landscaping and is shielded from motorists and adjacent residents.
d. Should the U.S. Postal Service purchase or lease land within Creekside
Commerce Park, in addition to the user signs as permitted herein, they will
be allowed one sign between Immokalee Road and the proposed lake
adjacent to the west entry.
E. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic signs such as street name signs, stop signs, speed limit signs, etc. may be
designed to reflect a common architectural theme, in accordance with Section
3.2.8.3.19, of the LDC.
2.21 GENERAL PERMITTED USES
Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 2-13 September 2, 2016
A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Creekside
Commerce Park PUD except in the Preserve Area. General permitted uses are
those uses which generally serve the Developer and tenants of Creekside
Commerce Park and are typically part of the common infrastructure.
B. General Permitted Uses:
1. Essential services as set forth under LDC, Section 2.6.9.1.
2. Water management facilities and related structures.
3. Temporary sewage treatment facilities.
4. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural
bank treatments.
5. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures.
6. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the
Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants,
including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses.
7. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms,
fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.11 of this
PUD.
8. Fill storage subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD.
Site filling and grading as set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD.
9. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and
which the Community Development and Environmental Services
Administrator determines to be compatible.
10. Sidewalks may occur within County required buffers if approved by the
Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator.
11. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such
standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the LDC
provision in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval.
12. Creekside Commerce Park shall be permitted to develop with a maximum
of 40 percent commercial uses. Commercial uses are defined as offices,
health services, medical clinics, financial institutions, fitness centers,
childcare centers, restaurants and retail sales in accordance with Section
3.3. C.2. hereof.
Words stmek thpough are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 2-14 September 2, 2016
2.22 MISCELLANEOUS
A. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any
rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the
permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations
imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a
violation of state or federal law.
B. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before
commencement of the development.
Words sk through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 2-15 September 2, 2016
SECTION III
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE DISTRICT
3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for
areas within Creekside Commerce Park designated on the Master Plan as "I/C".
3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Areas designated as "I/C" on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of
5-58716,000 square feet of gross floor area of industrial/commerce uses on 41.649.90.±
net acres. Intermediate care (SIC Code 8052), group housing and hotel/motel uses (SIC
Code 7011) are in addition to the IC gross square footage figures. The overall
vatio (FAR) fer- the 1C designated eas may exeeed .35. Individual par -eels may be
developed a4 a highef FAR and the .
for hotel/motel, gfoup housing and intefflie
ear -e f6eilities (SIC Code 8052) shall not eNeeed .6. (Ref�f te Seetion 3.5, Deviatiens);
,,,,..,eve the •era" FAR for the PUD for IC and B District areas will not exceed .3-54. 5
excluding parking structures.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the United States Postal Service parcel may use any
available square footage in the I/C District and the Business District up to a FAR of .35
on the United States Postal Service Parcel until all available square footages are used up
in the PUD.
3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in
whole or part, for other than the following:
A. The permitted principal uses and structures will generally consist of light
manufacturing, wholesale, warehouse, processing and packaging, laboratories and
clinics, research, design and product development, business services and
corporate offices and headquarters.
1. Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment (Group 3728)
2. Apparel and Other Finished Products (Groups 2311-2399)
3. Building Contractors (Groups 1521-1542), except for general contractors
for mobile home repair on site, modular housing and premanufactured
housing assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill
construction, and truck and automobile assembly plant construction.
Words strue%lreugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-1 September 2, 2016
4. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338,
7352, 7359-7389 except for industrial truck rental and leasing; plants, live:
rental and leasing; toilets, portable: rental and leasing; employment
agencies, except theatrical and motion picture; labor contractors
(employment agencies) model registries; labor pools; manpower pools;
modeling service; dogs, rental of. for protective service; automobile
recovery service; automobile repossession service; bartering services for
businesses; bondspersons; bottle exchanges; check validation service;
contractors disbursement control; filling pressure containers (aerosol) with
hair spray, insecticides, etc.; fire extinguishers, service of gas systems,
contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and
shearing on a contract or fee basis produce weighing service, not
connected with transportation; scrap steel cutting on a contract or fee
basis; solvents recovery service on a contract or fee basis; tobacco
sheeting service on a contract or fee basis)
5. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351)
6. Communications (Groups 4812-4899 not including major communications
towers related to cellular phone service, radio broadcasting, television
broadcasting, radar or telephone service)
7. Computer and Office Equipment (Groups 3571-3579)
8. Construction; Special Trade Contractors (Groups 1711-1799 except for
boiler erection and installation contractors; drainage system installations,
cesspool and septic tank contractors; fuel oil burner installation and
servicing contractors; gasoline hookup contractors; sewer hookups and
connection for buildings contractors; epoxy application contractors;
fireproofing buildings contractors; gasoline pump installation contractors;
lead burning contractors; and mobile home site setup and tie down
contractors)
9. Depository and Non -Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6163)
10. Drugs and Medicines (Groups 2833-2836, except for adrenal derivatives:
bulk, uncompounded; barbituric acid and derivatives: bulk,
uncompounded; cocaine and derivatives; codeine and derivatives; gland
derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; mercury chlorides, U.S.P; mercury
compounds, medicinal: organic and inorganic; morphine and derivatives;
opium derivatives)
11. Educational Services (Groups 8249-8299 except construction equipment
operation schools; truck driving schools; automobile driving instruction;
survival schools; vocational counseling)
Words meek tkreugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-2 September 2, 2016
12. Electronics and Other Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (Groups 3612,
3613, 3624, 3625, 3631, 3641-3676, 3678, 3679, 3694, 3695, 3699, except
for airport lighting transformers, autotransformers, electric (power
transformers) distribution transformers, electric; electric furnace
transformers; lighting transformers, street and airport; transformers,
reactor; atom smashers (particle accelerators; electron beam metal cutting,
forming, and welding machines; electron linear accelerators; electrostatic
particle accelerators))
13. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services
(Groups 8711-8748 except chemical laboratories, commercial research;
automobile proving and testing grounds; metallurgical testing laboratories;
pollution testing, except automotive emissions testing; radiation dosimetry
laboratories; seed testing laboratories; veterinary testing laboratories)
14. Fabricated Metal Products (Groups 3411-3432, 3442, 3444, 3446, 3452,
3469, 3492, 3495, 3496, production of metal is prohibited)
15. Furniture and Fixtures Manufacturing (Groups 2511-2599)
16. Government Offices/Buildings (Groups 9111-9199, 9221, 9222, 9224-
9229, 9311, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611, 9631-9661)
17. Hotels / Motels (Group 7011), not to exceed a maximum of 180 rooms for
the entire PUD. Only 1 Hotel/Motel is permitted within the PUD and it
must be located east of Goodlette-Frank Road and subject to specific
development standards and setbacks in Section 3.4.
18. Industrial and Commercial Machinery (Groups 3524, 3546, 3553-3556,
3559, 3562, 3564-3566, 3581-3599 except for bronzing and dusting
machines for printing trades; foundry type for printing; presses, printing -
slugs printers'; ammunition and explosives loading machinery; brick
making machines; cement making machinery; chemical kilns; control rod
drive mechanisms for use on nuclear reactors; foundry machinery and
equipment; frame straighteners, automotive (garage equipment); fur
sewing machines; ginning machines, cotton; metal finishing equipment for
plating, except rolling mill lines; metal pickling equipment, except rolling
mill lines)
19. Leather and Leather Products (Groups 3131-3199)
20. Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments; Photographic,
Medical and Optical Goods: Watches and Clocks Manufacturing (Groups
3812-3843, 3845-3873)
21. Membership Organizations (Groups 8611-8631)
Words struek thro� are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-3 September 2, 2016
22. Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (Groups 3911-3999 except for
dressing of furs: bleaching, blending, curring, scraping, and tanning;
feathers: curling, dyeing, and renovating - for the trade; fur stripping; furs
dressed: bleached, curried, scraped, tanned, and dyed; pelts: scraping,
curring, tanning, bleaching and dyeing; plumes, feather; tear gas devices
and equipment; veils made of hair)
23. Motion Picture Production (Groups 7812-7819)
24. Motor Freight Transportation (Groups 4214, 4215)
25. Packing and Crating (Group 4783)
26. Paper and Allied Products (Groups 2652-2657, 2673-2679)
27. Personal Services (Groups 7213, 7216, 7219, 7221)
28. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991)
29. Plastic Materials and Synthetics (Groups 2833,2834)
30. Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries (Groups 2711-2791)
31. Professional Offices: including but not limited to, Travel Agencies
(Group 4724); Insurance Agencies (Group 6411); Insurance Carriers
(Groups 6311-6399); Real Estate (Groups 6512, 6514, 6517, 6519, 6531,
6541, 6552,)
32. Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products (Groups 3021, 3085, 3086,
3088, 3089)
33. Transportation Equipment (Group 3732, except for boats, fiberglass:
building and repairing; boats: motorboats, sailboats, rowboats, and canoes
- building and repairing; houseboats, building and repairing; motorboats,
inboard and outboard: building and repairing)
34. United States Postal Service (Group 4311)
35. Warehousing and Storage (Group 4225, 4226, 5014 except oil and gas
storage, petroleum and chemical bulk stations and automobile dead
storage) only one (1) self -storage use allowed to be located adjacent to the
Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant.
36. Wholesale Trade -Durable Goods (Groups 5021-5031, 5043-5049, 5063-
5074, 5078, 5091, 5092, 5094-5099 except for fencing, wood -wholesale;
lumber: rough, dressed, and finished -wholesale; batteries, except
automotive -wholesale; storage batteries, industrial -wholesale; unit
substations -wholesale; boilers, power: industrial -wholesale; boilers, steam
and hot water heating -wholesale; burners, fuel oil and distillate oil -
wholesale; oil burners -wholesale)
Words struek threugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-4 September 2, 2016
37. Wholesale Trade -Nondurable Goods (Groups 5111-5143, 5145, 5147-
5149, 5192, 5199 except for cats -wholesale; charcoal -wholesale; dogs -
wholesale; fish, tropical -wholesale; furs, dressed -wholesale; greases,
animal and vegetable -wholesale; ice, manufactured or natural -wholesale,
leather and cut stock -wholesale; linseed oil -wholesale; oils, except
cooking: animal and vegetable -wholesale; oilseed cake and meal -
wholesale; rubber, crude -wholesale; sawdust -wholesale; vegetable cake
and meal -wholesale; wigs -wholesale; worms -wholesale)
38. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose
statement of the District and which the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this
District.
B. Restricted Principal Uses
The following medical related uses must be located within a 1/4 mile radius of the
hospital property boundary.
Group housing for the elderly limited to Assisted living facilities,
independent living units, skilled nursing units and continuing care
retirement communities. A maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be
permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.13.1, 3.3.13.2, 4.3.13.1 and
4.3.13.3. These uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank
Road.
2. Health Services, medical clinics and offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), a
maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in
Sections 3.3.13.1, 3.3.13.2, 4.3.13.1 and 4.3.13.3. SIC Code 8052 land uses
are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road.
3. Medical Laboratories and research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups
8071-8092, 8099)
4. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose
statement of the District and which the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this
District.
C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures:
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in
this district.
Words struekthreugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-5 September 2, 2016
2. Retail and wholesale sales and/or display areas as accessory to the
principal use, not to exceed an area greater than forty percent (40%) of the
gross floor area of the permitted principal use.
D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing
Group housing uses described in Section 3.2.13.1 shall provide the following
services and/or be subject to the following operational standards:
1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older.
2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents.
3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the
purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual
transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized
needs including but not limited to medical office visits.
4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist
residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also
be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning
for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at
the on-site clubhouse.
5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness
programs shall be provided for the residents.
6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the
event of medical or other emergency.
7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical
impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes
and federal law and regulation.
3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 S.F.
B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT.
C. Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front Yard, adjacent to Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road: Fifty
feet (50'). For parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road, see
additional setback requirements in Section 3.4.C.7.a.
Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-6 September 2, 2016
2. Front Yard, Internal: Thirty feet (30')
3. Side Yard: Ten feet (10')
Five feet (5') to internal property line along Pine Ridge canal
drainage easement and FP&L easement
4. Waterfront: Zero feet (0') to bulkhead or rip -rap at top of bank, otherwise
twenty feet (20')
5. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25')
6. Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD: Fifty feet
(50')
7. Minimum Building Setback from Existing Goodlette-Frank Road Right -
of -Way East of Goodlette-Frank Road:
a) Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50'), except as
provided as follows:
i) For group housing for elderly and intermediate care use:
(a) If the zoned height of any structure exceeds 50 feet,
the minimum setback is 75 feet plus for any portion
of a building exceeding fifty feet in zoned height an
increased setback at a 1:2 ratio (i.e., for one vertical
foot of height, setback is increased by two
horizontal feet) for that portion of the building over
50 feet of height.
ii) For hotel/motel use:
(a) Minimum setback of 75 feet regardless of height
plus for any portion of a building exceeding fifty
feet in zoned height an increased setback at a 1:2
ratio (i.e., for one vertical foot of height, setback is
increased by two horizontal feet) for that portion of
the building over 50 feet of height.
D. Maximum Height (Zoned): For parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road: thifty-
€+vefifty feet (35150'), including silos, storage tanks, elevator towers, satellite
dishes, antennas, etc. Facilities located on Tract 5 on the Master Plan shall have a
maximum zoned height of one -hundred eighty five 0 85') feet and a maximum
actual height of two -hundred five (205') feet, For parcels east of Goodlette-Frank
Road: the Hotel, group housing for the elderly, and the intermediate care facility
shall have a zoned height seventy-five feet (75'), actual height eight -five feet
Words str ek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-7 September 2, 2016
(85'). All other uses permitted east of Goodlette-Frank Road pursuant to Section
III shall have a zoned height of fifty feet (50') and an actual height of sixty feet
(60').
E. Outside storage or display shall be permitted and shall be screened from all
internal and external public roadways with a fence or landscaping equivalent or
combination thereof. Said fence, wall or landscaped screen shall be opaque in
design. All manufacturing operations and equipment, including accessory process
equipment such as compressors and air handlers shall be contained in an enclosed
structure.
F. All str-ial IIC buildings s
sides visible fi-em said read -ways afe prohibited-, as well as emhposed fflietal siding
on atiy builwest —of-GeedTe** Roz shall meet the requirements of
Section 5.05.08 of the LDC, except for buildings located on Tract 5 on the Master
Plan, which shall be subject to the deviation process in Section 5.05.08 of the
LDC (see Section 3.5.2, Development Deviations, of this PUD Ordinance).
G. Business District type uses located within the I/C District along Goodlette-Frank
Road will meet the Collier County Architectural Guidelines in Division 2.8. of the
LDC.
H. Industrial type uses abutting Goodlette-Frank Road shall meet the requirements of
Section 2.19.13.3 hereof, alternatively, said uses shall have the option of utilizing
the landscaped buffer applicable to business uses fronting Goodlette-Frank Road,
provided the portion of the building facing Goodlette-Frank Road meets the
following Architectural Guideline Sections of the LDC, therefore satisfying the
intent of the building design section of the Architectural Guidelines in the opinion
of the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator:
Section 2.8.3.5.1., Purpose and Intent
2. Section 2.8.3.5.4., Facade Standard
3. Section 2.8.3.5.6., Project Standards
4. Section 2.8.3.5.7., Detail Features except for 2.8.3.5.7.2.
Section 2.8.3.5.12.
I. Loading Areas: Buildings west of the Pine Ridge canal and adjacent to the Pelican
Marsh boundary shall orient loading docks to the north, east or west.
Noise: Uses within the I/C District shall not exceed 65 dBA between the hours of
7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 60 dBA after 10 p.m. to 6:59
Words struek Areugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-8 September 2, 2016
a.m. and all of Sundays, as measured at the property boundary of the land use
from which the sound emanates.
K. Odor: No business shall cause or allow the emission of odorous air from any
single source such as to result in odors which are detectable outside the parcel
boundaries. Best practical treatment, maintenance, and control currently available
shall be utilized in order to maintain the lowest possible emission of odorous air.
L. Lighting: Lighting shall be located so that no light is aimed directly toward a
property designated residential if lighting is located within 200 feet of residential
property. Light fixtures within parking areas shall not exceed 25 feet in height.
M. Emissions: All sources of air emissions shall comply with rules set forth by the
Environmental Protection Agency (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40) and the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Florida Administrative Code,
Chapter 17-2). No person shall operate a regulated source of air emissions
without a valid operation permit issued by the Department of Environmental
Regulation.
3.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS
1. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes a .45 floor area ratio
(FAR) for group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses,
including the intermediate care facilities.
2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08G, Deviations and alternate compliance,
which authorizes the County Manager or designee to administratively approve
deviations from compliance with Section 5.05.08 of the LDC for specific types of
buildings to allow general office and medical office that can be constructed on
Tract 5 of the Master Plan to be eligible for this deviation process.
3.6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESTRICTIONS
The use of bald cypress trees to meet the landscape buffer requirements in section
2.19.B.2. (and B.3) are prohibited
Words sowek threugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 3-9 September 2, 2016
SECTION IV
BUSINESS DISTRICT
4.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for
areas within Creekside Commerce Park designated on the Master Plan as "B".
4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Areas designated as "B" on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of
29292,000 square feet of floor area, including approximately 299242,000 square feet of
office uses and €050,000 square feet of retail uses on 444.24.88± net acres. Intermediate
care facilities (SIC Code 8052), group housing and hotel/motel uses (SIC Code 7011) are
in addition to the B District gross square footage figures. The evefall fleef aro, f
(FAR) f f the B designate, afeas m exeeed .35.Individual parcels may be developed at
a higher FAR and the FAR for hotel/motel, group housing and intermediate care facilities
(SIC Code 8052) shall not exceed .6. (Refer to Section 4.5, Deviations); however, the
overall FAR for the PUD for IC and B District areas will not exceed. -3-545.
4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in
whole or part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures:
1. Apparel and Accessory Stores (Groups 5611-5699)
2. Breweries (Group 2082)
3. Building Contractors (Groups 1521-1542), except for general contractors
for mobile home repair on site, modular housing and premanufactured
housing assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill
construction, and truck and automobile assembly plant construction.
4. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338,
7352, 7359-7389 except for industrial truck rental and leasing; plants, live:
rental and leasing; toilets, portable: rental and leasing; employment
agencies, except theatrical and motion picture; labor contractors
(employment agencies) model registries; labor pools; manpower pools;
modeling service; dogs, rental of: for protective service; automobile
recovery service; automobile repossession service; bartering services for
businesses; bondspersons; bottle exchanges; check validation service;
contractors disbursement control; filling pressure containers (aerosol) with
Words str*ek thre� are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-1 September 2, 2016
hair spray, insecticides, etc.; fire extinguishers, service of gas systems,
contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and
shearing on a contract or fee basis produce weighing service, not
connected with transportation; scrap steel cutting on a contract or fee
basis; solvents recovery service on a contract or fee basis; tobacco
sheeting service on a contract or fee basis)
5. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351)
6. Convenience Store, food market (Group 5411) only two (2) allowed
within the PUD and Gasoline Filling Station (Group 5541) only one (1)
allowed within the PUD.
7. Communications (Groups 4812-4899), not including major
communication towers related to cellular phone service, radio
broadcasting, television broadcasting, radar or telephone service.
8. Dance and Martial Arts Studios (Groups 7911 and 7999, including only
gymnastics and martial arts instruction)
9. Depository and Non -Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6163)
including automatic teller machines
10. Drugs and Medicines (Groups 2833-2836 except for adrenal derivatives:
bulk, uncompounded; barbituric acid and derivatives: bulk,
uncompounded; cocaine and derivatives; codeine and derivatives; gland
derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; mercury chlorides, U.S.P; mercury
compounds, medicinal: organic and inorganic; morphine and derivatives;
opium derivatives)
11. Eating Places (Group 5812) not including stand alone drive-thru
restaurants.
12. Educational Services (Groups 8249-8299 except construction equipment
operation schools; truck driving schools; automobile driving instruction;
survival schools; vocational counseling)
13. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services
(Groups 8711-8748 except chemical laboratories, commercial research;
automobile proving and testing grounds; metallurgical testing laboratories;
pollution testing, except automotive emissions testing; radiation dosimetry
laboratories; seed testing laboratories; veterinary testing laboratories)
14. Government Offices/Buildings (Groups 9111-9199, 9221, 9222, 9224-
9229, 9311, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611, 9631-9661)
15. Hardware Stores (Group 5251)
Words sk thpeugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-2 September 2, 2016
16. Home Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Stores (Groups 5712-5736)
17. Hotels / Motels (Group 7011); not to exceed a maximum of 180 rooms for
the entire PUD. Only 1 hotel/motel is permitted within the PUD and it
must be located east of Goodlette-Frank Road and subject to additional
building development standards and setbacks identified in Section
4A.Miscellaneous Food Stores (Group 5499)
18, Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores (Group 5399)
19. Miscellaneous Retail (Groups 5912-5949 and 5992-5999, excluding used
merchandise stores, fireworks, gravestones, tombstones and monuments,
ice dealers, sales barns, and swimming pools; retail)
20. Paint/Glass and Wallpaper (Group 523 1)
21. Personal Services (Groups 7215, excluding self-service or coin laundries,
7221-7251, 7291 and 7299, including only clothing rental, costume rental,
tanning salons and hair services)
22. Professional Offices: Travel Agencies (Group 4724); Insurance Agencies
(Group 6411); Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311-6399); Real Estate
(Groups 6512-6515, 6517, 6519, 6531, 6541, 6552, 6553); Holding and
Other Investment Offices (Groups 6712-6799); Attorneys (Group 8111)
23. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991)
24. Retail Bakeries (Group 5461)
25. Security and Commodity Brokers (Groups 6211-6289)
26. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose
statement of the District and which the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this
District.
B. Restricted Principal Uses
The following medical related uses must be located within 1/4 mile radius of the
hospital property boundary.
Group housing for the elderly limited to assisted living facilities,
independent living units, skilled nursing units and continuing care
retirement communities. A maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be
permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.13.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and
Words strwek thpwugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 4-3 September 2, 2016
4.3.13.3. These uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank
Road.
2. Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores (Group 5912) only one (1) drug store
allowed.
3. Health Services, Medical Clinics and Offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), a
maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in
Sections 3.3.13.1, 3.3.13.2, 4.3.13.1 and 4.3.13.3. SIC Code 8052 land uses
are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road.
4. Medical Laboratories and research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups
8071-8099)
5. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose
statement of the District and which the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this
District.
C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses
permitted in this district.
2. Retail and wholesale sales and/or display areas as accessory to the
principal use, not to exceed an area greater than forty percent (40%) of the
gross floor area of the permitted principal use.
D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing
Group housing uses described in Section 4.2.B.1 shall provide the following
services and/or be subject to the following operational standards:
1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older.
2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents.
3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the
purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual
transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized
needs including but not limited to medical office visits.
4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist
residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also
be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning
Words struelthreugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-4 September 2, 2016
for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at
the on-site clubhouse.
5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness
programs shall be provided for the residents.
6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the
event of medical or other emergency.
7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical
impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes
and federal law and regulation.
4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 S.F.
B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT.
C. Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front Yard, Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank Roads: Fifty feet (50')
2. Front Yard, Internal Roads: Thirty feet (30')
3. Side Yard: Ten feet (10')
Five feet (5') to internal property line along the Pine Ridge canal drainage
easement and FP&L easement
4. Waterfront: Zero feet (0') to bulkhead or rip -rap at top of bank, otherwise
twenty feet (20')
5. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25')
6. Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD for
Properties West of Goodlette-Frank Road:
a) Fifty feet (50') for buildings up to thirty five feet (35') in height.
b) Three additional feet (3') for every one foot of building height over
thirty five feet (35') adjoining residential districts.
7. For Properties East of Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum Building Setback
from Perimeter Boundary of PUD and from Public Roadways:
Words struek thre� are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 4-5 September 2, 2016
a) Immokalee Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50') plus for any portion
of a building exceeding a zoned height of fifty feet (50'), that
portion of the building shall have its building setback increased at
a 1:3 ratio (i.e. one (1') vertical foot of height for every three (3')
horizontal feet); or
For any portion of a hotel that may be constructed on the B
designated tract at the southeast corner of Goodlette-Frank Road
and Immokalee Road, a minimum three hundred fifty foot (350')
building setback from Immokalee Road.
b) Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50') and for any
portion of a building exceeding a zoned height of fifty feet (50'),
that portion of the building shall have the setback increased at a 1:2
ratio (i.e. one (1') vertical foot of height for every two (2')
horizontal feet); or
For any portion of a hotel on the B designated tract on the
southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road,
the minimum setback from Goodlette-Frank Road shall be
seventy-five (75') regardless of height.
D. Maximum Height (Zoned): For parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road, three
stories over parking to a maximum of fifty feet (50') except that no structure shall
be greater than thirty-five feet (35'), on property west of the Pine Ridge Drainage
Easement.
For Properties East of Goodlette-Frank Road:
a) The group housing for the elderly and intermediate care facilities
constructed on the B designated tract located at the southeast quadrant of
the Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road intersection shall have a
zoned height of sixty feet (60') and an actual height of seventy feet (70'),
except that a hotel building or structure associated with this use may not
exceed a zoned height of seventy five feet (75') and an actual height of
eighty five (85'). Uses on Tract 9 on the Master Plan shall be permitted to
have a zoned height of seventy five feet (75') and an actual height of
eighty five (85')
b) The group housing for the elderly and intermediate care facilities
constructed on the easternmost B designated tract adjacent to Immokalee
Road, as shown on the Master Plan, shall have a zoned height of sixty feet
(60') and an actual height of seventy feet (70').
C) All other uses permitted pursuant to Section IV shall be limited to a
maximum zoned height of fifty (50') and an actual height of sixty (60').
Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 4-6 September 2, 2016
E. Commercial design guidelines for facilities in the Business District shall be
subject to the provisions of Division 2.8. Architectural and Site Design Standards
and Site Design Standards for commercial buildings and projects.
F. Outside storage or display shall be permitted and shall be screened from all
internal and external public roadways with a fence at least seven feet in height
above ground level, or landscaping equivalent or combination thereof. Said
fence, wall or landscaped screen shall be opaque in design.
4.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS
Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.l which establishes a .45 floor area ratio
(FAR) for group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses,
including the intermediate care facility.
2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 Directory signs, which authorizes one
(1) directory sign to be located at the project entrance, to permit installation of the
directory sign on Immokalee Road east of Goodlette-Frank Road, not at the
project entry, but rather at a location between the project entry and Goodlette-
Frank Road.
3. Deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.114a), Preservation Standards_ a
property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site
native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for
properties zoned commercial where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 2
acres in size to allow offsite preservation where the on-site preserve requirement
is more than 2 acres and where the off-site preserve proposed is less than 2 acres,
to permit an off-site preserve area of 1.35± acres. The preserve area impacted by
the expansion of the `B' District is located in the area east of Goodlette-Frank
Road.
4.6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESTRICTIONS
The use of bald cypress trees to meet the landscape buffer requirements in section
2.19.A.2 (and B.21 are prohibited.
Words #ret are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 4-7 September 2, 2016
SECTION V
PRESERVE AREA
5.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for
the area within Creekside Commerce Park, designated on the Master Plan, as Preserve
Area,
5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Areas designated as Preserve Area on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate
natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and
functions.
5.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water
used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Uses and Structures
1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails).
2. Water management structures.
Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, permitted in accordance
with the LDC and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing
Examiner determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area.
5.4 PRESERVE DISTRICT PRESERVATION EASEMENT
A non-exclusive preservation easement or tract is required by LDC Section 3.2.8.4.7.3.
for preservation lands included in the Preserve Area. The Developer, its successor or
assign shall be responsible for the control and maintenance of lands within the Preserve
Area. Exact location/boundary of the Preserve Area will be determined during the
development permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District,
Army Corps of Engineers, and Collier County.
Words s"ek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPDD Amendment 5-1 September 2, 2016
5.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS
The proposed native vegetation retention areas, depicted on the Creekside Commerce
Park Master Plan, are intended for meeting the native vegetation requirements of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments
may be made to the location of the preservations areas at the time of preliminary plat or
site development -plan approval. If adjustments are needed, per the Collier County LDC
the Developer will have the option to increase the preservation in another area, enhance
and preserve another area, or provide increased native landscape per the Collier County
LDC. The proposed preservation areas, including 2791.37 acres of wetlands and 4744.28
acres of uplands, depicted on the Creekside Commerce Park master plan, are areas where
the native vegetation requirements may be met on-site as set forth in the Collier County
LDC. An area 0.68± acres in size shall be created as on-site native preservation, adjacent
to the existing "PU" preserve located west of Goodlette-Frank Road. The developer or
successors shall provide for a minimum of 1.35 acres of native vegetation preservation
offsite. The off-site preservation area shall be identified at the time of Development
Order approval, which proposes impacts to the existing preserve area(s).
Words sti-uelthrough are deleted; words underlined are added.
2016 CPUD Amendment 5-2 September 2, 2016
COLLIER'S
EXISTING TRAFFIC RESERVE PUD
SIGNAL
-MAJOR RTit1 SR.INAGE
MAJOR ENTRY Y `I ��--• 4.. MRIO N Y F A
SIGNAGE
ALTERNATE "A" 10' V
WIDE LANDSCAPE JJJ
BUFFER WITHIN
R.O.W. PER L.D.0.
(C,TBI
NAPLES DAILY
NEWS PUD
r
PROJECT
B Rd ARY ,
ALTERNATE 'A'
10' WIDE LANDSCAPI
BUFFER PER L.D.C.
(Cs)
NOTA PART
OF THIS PUD
SUPPLEMENT EXISTING BUFFER
WITH ADDITIONAL TREES TO
ACHIEVE 90% OPAQUE BUFFER
Ic")
REQUIRED PRESERVES: 7.00 ACRES
NORTH COLLIER NORTH COLLIER ON-SITE. 5.65 ACRES
MEDICAL HOSPITAL PUD
t OFF-SITE: 1.35 ACRES
3 —
- ••—°�-'�- '�•'-' EXISTING TRAFFIC ---
_ DEVIATION
IMMOKALEE ROAD MAJOR ENTRY SIGNAGE °� .._ .� _ - �"""""- ��. -
. .. - _ _ .. _ MINOR ENTRY SIGNAGE -
t r f NAJORENTRYSIGNAGE
1
2D' WIDE LANDSCAPE,'
BYO' WOE LANDSCAPE.i BUFFER
CT (Al. A2, B182BUFFER 8 1131 IA A2. BT, B2 b BS)
C /Sign Deviation (See PU 11
TRACT 3 ALTERNATE
Section 4.5, Item 2
) ,1
B Ii I B ) �1 ' B ! 1 '— 10'WR LANDSCAPE
TRACT 9_ BUFFER PER LD.0
TRACT 8
CREEKSIDE;PKWY� [ �—' m B (CAI
m
3GUTHWEST
II`ut` I 1 ;PROFESSIONAL
1 a t mlA .1 Q' A or CHEALTH PARK
TRACT 51— }
Q I• 1 `�
m TRACT 10 (.
rj l/r WIE tANO6CAPE_ (
PROJECT
/I`�,•.�.—_ _ �_.�—._ _
RiGNEA3S)
EbO'AecturalStandardsDeviationPACT UC
UNITARY -WITH
HDTREIUD Section 3.5, Item 2) ' P /BO
l/CSIGNAL ARE ACT
A8UpSCAPE BUFFER 11 .-
"IT
7
/94% OPAQUE BUFFER AND BERM ;
TO APPROXIMATE EXISTING BUFFER
(C.TI
WI y
I OPEN SPACE
Q
a
W3
FPAL EASEMENT C;
S'SERM WITH
ALTERNATE "A" BUFFER
Preserve Standards Deviation
(See PUD Section 4.5, Item 3)
ALTERNATE 'A^ BUFFER Cc
WITH TREES SO• D.G. SEW
IC.4)
LAND USE SUMMARY
I/C — Industrial/Commerce = 49.90± Ac
B — Business
= 24.88± Ac
Right of Way
= 9.25± Ac
L — Lake
= 7.63± Ac
PW — Preserved Wetlands
= 1.37± Ac
PU — Preserved Uplands
= 4.28± Ac
Other (buffers, open space)= 8.77± Ac
-- TOTAL = 106 08± Ac
F WOE LVAISCAPE BUFFER WITH
A W HEDGE TO SUPPLEMENT
EXISTING OAK TREE BUFFER ON
THE ADJACENT SWEAGE
GENERALNOTES
TREATMENT PLANT
(c5)
1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL, NOTA SPECIFIC SURVEY. ALL EASEMENT
mwlw
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. THE BUFFER DESIGNATIONS IN PARENTHESIS E.G. (C.1, A-1), REFER TO
-N -
PUD DOCUMENT PARAGRAPH 2.119 WHERE BUFFER IS DESCRIBED.
V -1. S
J.
U3
EXHIBIT B1
CROSS SECTIONS (ENLARGED)
INTERNAL PARCEL. PARKING STREET LIGHT
HEDGE
CANOPY TREE CANOPY TREE
PARCEL ENTRANCE T -WALK
INTERNAL PARCEL
PARKING
12' 1 12' +^
+a�cx
as•
PAVOAM
RNTERRIAL PARCEL PAR KMQ
HEDGE
STREET LIGHT
CANOPY TREE
�CANOPY TREE
PARCEL ENTRANCE MKT
1 i---SMWALK
PARKRNAL ING PARCEL
+r 1 1z 10' +z it s
lb"
wHucZ maw
�aa
INTERNAL PARM PARKING STREET LIGHT
WEDGE
CANOPY TIME % CANOPY TREE
PAROM MRANCE iM UMENT / r---^-8WEWALK
INTERNAL PARCEL
PARKING
G A
D 'C
GOEDE / ADAMCZYK / DEBOEST / CROSS
ATTORNEYS AND PROFESSIONAL COUNSEL
INFO@GADCLAW.COM / WWW.GADCLAW.COM
September 8, 2016
Sent via electronic mail(michaelbosi(Z colliergov.net)
Michael Bosi, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning
Collier County Growth Management Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Proposed Amendment to Creekside Commerce Park CPUD (PL20160001865)
Dear Mr. Bosi:
This Firm represents the Foundation of Pelican March, Inc. ("Foundation"), a Florida not for
profit corporation and homeowners association comprised of more than 4,000 residents. The
Foundation includes many homes and land located immediately adjacent to the Creekside
Commercial Park CPUD zoning district ("Creekside CPUD").
As you are aware, Arthrex has an application pending(referenced above)to amend the Creekside
CPUD (the "Proposed PUD Amendment"). While we recognize the important contributions that
Arthrex has made in our community, and we applaud their continued success, we have serious
concerns with the Proposed PUD Amendment.
The Foundation agrees with and echoes the concerns previously expressed by neighboring
communities such as Bay Colony and Collier's Reserve. In addition, the Foundation has the
following concerns with the Proposed PUD Amendment:
Procedural Defects. A review of project records indicates that to date, the rezoning process is
procedurally defective to the detriment of Foundation members and neighboring communities.
Defects in the process include the following:
1. No pre-application meeting. County records indicate that the requirement for a
pre-application meeting may have been "waived". However, the pre-application meeting is not
optional. The County is apparently taking the position that a meeting with the Applicant in the
County Manager's Office, without any notes taken, meets the pre-application meeting
requirement. However, every other rezoning in Collier County must abide by land development
8950 Fontana Del Sol Way, Ste. 100 2030 McGregor Boulevard 2600 Douglas Road,Ste.717 4800 N. Federal Highway, Ste.307D
Naples, Florida 34109 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Boca Raton, Florida 33431
P: 239.331.5100 P: 239.333.2992 P: 786.294.6002 P: 561.368.9200
F: 239.260.7677 F: 239.333.2999 F: 305.503.9551 F: 561.395.7050
regulations that require a pre-application meeting with the Director of Planning and Zoning and
other staff"prior to the submission of a formal application . . ." (see LDC, Section 10.02.13.B.1).
The pre-application meeting is intended to discuss project details and requirements with the
County's professional staff. This is a cost that every other applicant must incur. By "waiving"
the pre-application requirement, and holding a meeting in the County Manager's Office in the
place of this clear requirement, the County has apparently violated its own land development
regulations.
2. No NIM notice to more than 4,000 neighbors. The Foundation is a prevalent and
well-known homeowners association that borders the Creekside PUD. County land development
regulations require provision of notice of the neighborhood information meeting ("NIM") to "all
neighboring civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use change
. . ." This notice requirement is the Applicant's responsibility. The Foundation's many members
will be impacted by this project, and the Applicant's failure to provide notice of the NIM to the
Foundation and its members has resulted in a lack of input from hundreds of affected Foundation
members and Creekside neighbors.
The application reflects an intent to notify the Pelican Marsh community via "Pelican Marsh
Owners Association, Inc." That entity is a Florida not for profit corporation dissolved more than
sixteen (16) years ago and wholly unrelated to the Foundation. The individual served on behalf
of Pelican Marsh Owners Association, Inc. is a representative of the Pelican Marsh developer
that turned over control of the Foundation to the members many years ago. Further, although the
Applicant apparently held a meeting with neighboring Bay Colony, the application is void of any
formal notice to the immediately adjacent Bay Colony land owner.
It is the Foundation's position that the expedited approval schedule provides inadequate
opportunity for public participation, and therefore the Applicant's attempt to provide notice to
affected neighbors should be flawless to maximize any potential public participation.
Substantive Defects. In addition to the above procedural requirements, the Foundation asserts
that the Proposed PUD Amendment includes several substantive shortcomings.
1. Building height. The proposed amendment includes an increase in building
height West of Goodlette-Frank Road from the existing 35 feet to 50 feet, with an isolated
exception of Tract 5 to 185 feet (zoned height) and 205 feet (actual height). The Proposed PUD
Amendment further includes an increase in building height East of Goodlette-Frank Road for
Tract 9 and removes most all restrictions on the use of the sizeable Tract 9. This is an
unreasonable increase that will change the skyline of North Naples and the isolated exceptions
create drastic de facto variances to longstanding height restrictions that have shaped the character
of Pelican Marsh and Collier County. If the Creekside PUD Amendment is approved, it will
undoubtedly yield a waiting line for developers and businesses to request similar variances and
amendments.
El A
2 `D
2. Traffic. The proposed amendment also includes more than 3,000 new vehicle
trips daily that will undoubtedly threaten to burden the level of service below acceptable
parameters. It is my understanding that the NIM included an acknowledgment by the
Applicant's representative that the traffic frustrations and service levels would be exacerbated as
a result of the Proposed PUD Amendment. The Foundation further questions whether the
County has a full appreciation for the negative traffic impacts considering the nature of the
proposal would significantly alter the number and nature of jobs based in the area, but also the
traffic flow by the alteration of Creekside Boulevard and its use by the public and large trucks
employed by the Naples Daily News. Neither the record nor the information provided at the
NIM reflect a comprehensive understanding of these critical issues.
3. Environment. The Foundation echoes the concerns expressed by the Conservancy
of Southwest Florida that the proposed amendment would result in adverse impacts to the
existing conservation easements and preserve areas. The fact that Pelican Marsh borders the
Creekside PUD indicates these environmental concerns may also directly impact the Foundation,
and this impact may not be adequately analyzed due to the accelerated approval process being
employed by the County.
4. Density. The project proposes intensification of commercial density. It appears
that Arthrex applied for and obtained a previous amendment to the Creekside PUD in January,
2016 (2016-05), which on its face does not appear to be an extensive increase in commercial
density, but when combined with the current proposed amendment yields an unreasonable influx
of commercial density and capacity. These cumulative amendments are alarming to the
Foundation considering the fact that the Foundation, as a significant stakeholder in the area, did
not receive proper NIM notice for both the January amendment and the current proposed
amendment. Foundation residents are now faced with the possibility of having their property
rights substantially impacted without notice or representation.
My client understands the importance of timing to this project. Nevertheless, this Applicant
must be held to the same standards as other applicants with respect to observing County land
development regulations. This PUD amendment is clearly being handled differently and
although the accelerated timeline and requested outcome may be good for Arthrex, it is
detrimental to its neighbors and the residents of Collier County. The requirements of a pre-
application meeting and proper notice to neighboring homeowners associations are in place for a
reason — i.e., to ensure public involvement and proper review and vetting of any proposal. The
Foundation opposes any amendment to the Creekside PUD that would permit a building height
greater than is currently constructed.
By this communication, we kindly request the County honor the following requests: (1) require
Arthrex to hold a pre-application meeting, consistent with County land development regulations;
(2) require Arthrex to re-schedule the neighborhood meeting, consistent with County land
development regulations; (3) continue and abate the September 15, 2016 Planning Commission
hearing to consider the Proposed PUD Amendment; (4) make this communication a part of the
record in relation to the referenced project; and (5) add the Foundation to the project notification
list.
El A
3 D 1131
If you have any questions or concerns with the information we have provided, do not hesitate to
contact me at (239) 687-3936 or at sadamczyk@gadclaw.com. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Very truly,
Goe• Adamczyk, DeBoest & Cross
`I eve Adamczyk
cc: Donna Fiala, Chairman and District 1 Commissioner
Georgia Hiller, Esq., District 2 Commissioner
Tom Henning, District 3 Commissioner
Penny Taylor, District 4 Commissioner
Tim Nance, District 5 Commissioner
County Attorney's Office
Robert Pritt, Esq.
Mark Strain, Planning Commission Chair
Karen Homiak, Planning Commission
Diane Ebert, Planning Commission
Stan Chrzanowski, Planning Commission
El A
4 ~D
MORRIS 2891 Center Pointe Drive Unit 100 I Fort Myers, Florida 33916
DEPEVV Phone (239) 337-3993 I Toll Free (866) 337-7341
www.morris-depew.com
ENGINEERS• PLANNERS•SURVEYORS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Compatibility Issues: Creekside CPUD Amendment
PL20160001865
September 8,2016
Arthrex, Inc. has submitted a request to modify the existing Creekside CPUD approval (Collier
County Ordinance 06-51, as amended by Collier County Ordinance 13-23). Creekside is a 106-
acre commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of Immokalee and Goodlette
Roads in northern Collier County. Based upon the applicant's submittals, the following issues
have been identified as compatibility concerns for surrounding and proximate residents.
1. The application increases the total allowable square footage of the development by
200,000 square feet. The submitted traffic study indicates that an additional 3,970 daily
trips are being added to the network. This provides an additional 206 AM peak hour
trips and an additional 392 PM peak hour trips. Put more directly, there will be an
additional 3.43 cars per minute at the entrances to the development during the AM
peak, and an additional 6.53 cars per minute at the entrances to the development
during the PM peak. May, 2106 traffic counts on Goodlette were 19,266 average daily
trips (ADT's) south of Immokalee Road; counts on Immokalee were 49,296 ADT's east of
Goodlette and 22,803 ADT's west of U. S. 41; counts were 61,177 ADT's on U. S. 41,
north of Immokalee, and 39,096 ADT's south of Immokalee. The addition of 3,381 daily
trips to the network will be significant. Additionally, the proposed development
expansion is in a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area.This means that the area
in which it is proposed to be located is already deficient in the network's capacity. It is
also noted that a 25% pass-by capture rate was used for the analysis, but that rate is for
shopping centers, a use that does not accurately reflect the activities proposed for this
development.
2. The application removes the connection of Creekside Boulevard through the project.
Coupled with the additional floor area, and the added traffic impacts, the reduction of
internal circulation options will increase traffic congestion at the project's access points.
Truck traffic accessing the Naples Daily News will be forced to take a more circuitous
route to reach the loading areas west of the proposed new building. Additionally, the
applicant refuses to provide additional sidewalks along the remaining roadways to
accommodate multi-modal opportunities for internal circulation.
3. The project proposes to increase the allowable height on Tract 5 to 205' and allow the
proposed structure to avoid compliance with the architectural standards found in the
LDC.The applicant now represents that they will comply with standards to be enforced
by Staff at the time the site development permit applications are made.This removes
any consideration of the building features from consideration by the Planning
Commission of the Board of County Commissioners.There is significant concern that
such a large, imposing structure as that which is being proposed (i.e. at 205' in height
Fort Myers I Gainesville I Tallahassee Destin
Compatibility Issues,Creekside CPUD Amendment
September 8, 2016
Page 12
and with an additional 166,000 SF of overall development floor area) will so overpower
the current neighborhood as to change the existing aesthetic. Conditions should be
provided to protect the existing development, including consideration of massing, bulk,
facade articulation, and the potential for lowering the maximum height to more
generally conform to the current permitted heights. Representations provided by the
applicant cannot be relied upon absent conditions supplied within the approving
ordinance.
4. Section 2.21.B.12 of the PUD ordinance states, "Creekside Commerce Park shall be
permitted to develop with a maximum of 40 percent commercial uses. Commercial uses
are defined as offices, health services, medical clinics, financial institutions, fitness
centers, childcare centers, restaurants and retail sales in accordance with Section
3.3.C.2. hereof."Section 3.2 of the proposed ordinance indicates that there is an
increase of maximum floor area from 550,000 to 805,000 square feet. Neither the site
plan nor the proposed ordinance adequately demonstrate how the 40%cap on
commercial uses will be calculated, tallied by the County, or implemented by the
developer.There is no indication as to the percentage of the proposed 205' tall building
that will be considered as a use other than commercial in accordance with the
definitions of the proposed ordinance. Section 4.2 of the proposed ordinance also
addresses uses and floor areas in areas labelled 'B' on the Master Plan, but fails to
demonstrate how the 40% restriction is to be met. As part of the applicant's/1/2016
response, it is stated, "All additional square footage proposed will be for medical related
uses consistent with the standards providing for additional medical related uses near
the North Collier Hospital." Based upon the language of Section 2.21.B.12,these uses
would all appear to be part of the 40% maximum.
5. On page 3-8 of the proposed amended PUD ordinance the limit of 185'/205' is
established for Tract 5 of the MCP. Additionally, a limit of 75'/85' is established for the
I/C hotel/motel parcel. The remaining parcels west of Goodlette are being increased to
50' in height from 35'.The balance of the I/C parcels east of Goodlette are limited to
50'/60' in height. However, as noted on page 4-6, all uses on Tract 9 are specifically
called out for an increase in the height limit to 75'/85'. Clearly the overall impact of the
proposed amendments includes a significant increase in the permitted heights of the
development. As noted in the application materials, the tallest building in the area is
103' (North Collier Hospital) with the next tallest being the Naples Daily News (72').The
proposed structures will be among the tallest habitable buildings in Collier County. They
will be located adjacent to a golf course development of single family structures, and
quite visible to the surrounding communities.This building will be the only structure at
this height for miles around, and will certainly be a visible landmark located in a
community of significantly lesser structures. Additionally, lighting of the proposed
building during nighttime hours could have significant impacts upon surrounding and
proximate land uses.
6. The application is requesting a deviation for reduced on-site native vegetation
preservation.This will increase the area of impervious surface within the development,
decreasing the on-site preservation, according to the applicant, by 1.14 acres.The
project was previously required to preserve 6.14 acres, with that figure being reduced to
Compatibility Issues,Creekside CPUD Amendment
September 8,2016
Page I 3
5.0 acres by the request. However, it is noted that the developed site area of the I/C
portion of the PUD has been increased from 41.6 acres to 49.9 acres, and the B portion
of the PUD from 19.1 acres to 24.88 acres.Thus the net development area is being
increased, yet the preservation area is being decreased. Additionally, according to
Section 3.05.07B.1, the required preservation area would be 25%for projects greater
than 20 acres. For the 106.08-acre site, this means that the required preservation area
should be 26.52 acres.There does not appear to be any provision in the proposed
ordinance that would address the location of the required open space, nor is it
designated on the Master Plan. In fact,the Master Plan lists only 8.77 acres of buffers
and open space. Combining that number with the 5 acres of preservation area yields
only 13.77 acres of open space, a deficit of 12.75 acres.
7. The actual construction process on a building of 205' in height will involve the
placement of cranes, stockpiling of steel, concrete trucks, and a great deal of activity on
the proposed site.There is no consideration of working hours, restrictions on days of
the week to be worked, barriers, noise control, or other elements of the construction
process that could impact compatibility.
From: Michael Michigami [mmmbas@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:45 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Commissioner Strain,
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you,
Michael and Sharon Michigami
8990 Bay Colony Drive, Apt. 602
Naples, FL 34108
From: Gregory DeWitt [gregg.dewitt@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:46 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Mr. Strain:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Gregg and JoAnn DeWitt
From: Kim Rosenberg [krosenb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:21 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Kim Rosenberg
8665 Bay Colony Dr
Naples, FL
From: Donna Koterba [dkoterba@brudereramericas.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:28 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Mr. Strain,
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course
and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice
the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible
with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction
of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or
members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications.
Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full
disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
Also, a complete environmental impact study should be submitted before any other decisions are
rendered.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Best Regards,
Alois Rupp
9770 Niblick Lane
Naples, FL 34108
From: Debra Griswold [debragriswold@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:31 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Debra Griswold
9960 Brassie Bend
Naples, Florida 34108
From: eary@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:32 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf
course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building,
more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This
would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few
residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic
implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of
time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPad
From: George Klaus [lgklaus@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:36 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Mr. Strain,
I want to express my strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on my golf club, golf course and
residences at Bay Colony. The revisions would permit the construction
of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to
our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on
a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
I urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you,
George Klaus
--
George Klaus
949+422-4222
lgklaus@gmail.com
--
George Klaus
949+422-4222
lgklaus@gmail.com
--
George Klaus
949+422-4222
lgklaus@gmail.com
From: Harshman, Rich [Rich.Harshman@ATImetals.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:58 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; StrainMark
Cc: jerryt@baycolonygolfclub.com
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
My wife and I are members of the Bay Colony Golf Club.
express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development
revisions would have on our golf club, golf course a
revisions would permit the construction of a 205
than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else
in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and
would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a
fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic imp
concerns are also a major issue
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Harshman
Scheryl C. Harshman
8665 Bay Colony Drive
#1602
Naples, FL 34108
Richard J. Harshman
Harshman, Rich [Rich.Harshman@ATImetals.com]
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:58 PM
HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; StrainMark
jerryt@baycolonygolfclub.com
Dear Planning Commission Member:
My wife and I are members of the Bay Colony Golf Club. We want to
express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development
revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The
revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more
than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else
in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and
zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
We want to
express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development
nd residences. The
foot tall building, more
than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else
in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and
zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
lications. Environmental
with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Corporate Headquarters
1000 Six PPG Place
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5479
ATImetals.com
T: 412-394-2861
F: 412-394-2884
This electronic message contains information that may be confidential. The information is
intended to be for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
From: Michael J Rothmeier [mrothmeier@visi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:05 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or
members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications.
Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full
disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Michael J. Rothmeier
Member of Bay Colony Golf Club
Collier County's Planning Commissioners:
Planning Commissioner Email Address
Karen Homiak, Vice Chair karenhomiak@colliergov.net
Diane Ebert dianeebert@colliergov.net
Mark Strain, Chair markstrain@colliergov.net
Stan Chrzanowski stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net
The following
photographs taken from
the course illustrate the
impact the proposed
Artrex tower will have:
The linked image cannot be
displayed. The file may have been
moved, renamed, or deleted.
Verify that the link points to the
correct file and location.
From: STEPHEN PETERSEN [stephen_petersen@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:27 PM
To: EbertDiane
Cc: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf
course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building,
more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This
would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few
residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic
implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of
time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
From: Jay Smith [jsmith@teel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:30 PM
To: StrainMark
Cc: EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; HomiakKaren
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you,
Mr. & Mrs. Jay & Pat Smith
From: Nancy Johnson [nancyljohnson@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:31 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Importance: High
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you,
Brian and Nancy Nahey
9750 Bent Grass Bend
Naples, FL 34108
From: David J. Eskra [davideskra@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:47 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
David J. Eskra
7935 Vizcaya Way
Naples, Florida 34108
(Mobile)630.235.0136
(Home Florida)239.254.5035
(Home Wisconsin)262.448.1217
(Fax)239.254.5036
(e-mail) davideskra@comcast.net
From: Bob Tuniewicz [RTuniewicz@tri-techsales.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:49 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: ARTHREX
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would
have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the
construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to
our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a
fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very
few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have
major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an
unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major
changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Robert M Tuniewicz
906 SPANISH MOSS TRAIL
NAPLES, FLORIDA
CEO, Tri-Tech Sales Associates, Inc. & PRESIDENT, ACD Inc.
Nesconset, New York 11767
Tel; 631-642-0087 x 206
Fax: 631-642-1544
Cell : 516-849-9881
email address: rtuniewicz@tri-techsales.com
From: Joe Sanda [joesan@AstuteSolutions.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:12 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf
course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building,
more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This
would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few
residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic
implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of
time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you,
Joe Sanda
From: Barbara Balser [bbalser@balserllc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:01 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would
have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the
construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer
to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with
local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has
buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with
an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such
major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Barbara B. & Ronald D. Balser
Barbara & Ron Balser
Barbara’s Cell: 404 307-6444
Balsers’ Naples Residence: 239 596-1467
7575 Pelican Bay Blvd
Penthouse 1807
Naples, FL 34108
From: Dennis Donovan [dmdonovan3@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:02 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Dennis Donovan
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Felix Zulauf [zulauf@zuam.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:09 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Cc: Felix Zulauf
Subject: Arthrex Building
From: Felix Zulauf
Sent: Mittwoch, 7. September 2016 18:06
To: karenhomiak@colliergov.org; dianeebert@colliergov.org; markstrain@colliergov.org;
stanchrzanowski@colliergov.org
Subject: Arthrex Building
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would
have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the
construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our
property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a
fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very
few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major
traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an
unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major
changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Ursula & Felix W. Zulauf
8787 Bay Colony Drive
NAPLES, FL 34108
From: Mark H. Ferguson [mhferguson@sorlinglaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:26 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex Co.
Dear Planning Commission Member:
My wife and I are property owners in Naples. While I am a part-time resident, my wife is a Naples
resident and voter. I am writing today regarding the proposal of Arthrex Co. to make major
modifications to property near our Bay Colony home and golf course.
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course
and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice
the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible
with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction
of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or
members (including my wife and I) are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic
implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonably limited amount of
time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mark H. Ferguson
Phone: 217-544-1144
Fax: 217-522-3173
mhferguson@sorlinglaw.com
1 North Old State Capitol Plaza, Suite 200
P.O. Box 5131
Springfield, IL 62705
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance
upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly
delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work
product privilege by the transmission of this message.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-
mail, including attachments, is not intended or written by Sorling Northrup to be used, and any such tax advice
cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
From: Verne Istock [vgistock@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:13 PM
To: StrainMark
Cc: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Arthrex project
Dear Chairman Strain,
My wife and I have been members of Bay Colony Golf Club for the past 16 years and have a home on
Mashie Court with sight lines to the proposed tower. While we would not like to see the tower itself,
our biggest concerns are the impact this project will have from an environmental and density
standpoint. The Immokalee road is already a highly congested area and this project will make it far
worse in addition to eliminating one of the roads behind the shopping center.
We strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject this project in its entirety.
Very truly yours,
Verne and Judy Istock
9659 Mashie Court.
21.txt
From: Basil Anderson [basil.and@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:46 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Arthrex project- please reject!
Dear Planning Commission Member,
My wife and I selected Naples as our primary residence because of the unique
nature of this town. We happily sold our place on the East Coast and have been
delighted to live here.
We strongly oppose the proposed plan to build the Arthrex building as a 205
foot tall building. The reasons for our opposition are fourfold:
1. Once such a building is approved, the "genie is out of the bottle" and that
will set a precedent for future buildings of similar height; 2. Such a tall
building changes the architectural view of North Naples which makes it
unappealing versus the current buildings in the area. If approved, we would
move towards the unattractive "East Coast" model; 3. We joined the Bay Colony
Golf Club and love the serene nature of that club. If approved, this new
building absolutely destroys the look and feel of an outstanding club which
attracts successful people to Naples. I believe your Commission would do
Naples a tremendous dis favor if such a monstrosity is approved.
4. There are many many sites to develop business and office spaces without
changing the very nature of Naples that has attracted so many of us to this
part of Florida.
I urge you to reject this project as proposed.
Thanks for your consideration.
Basil and Patti Anderson
239-206-4481(o)
Sent from my iPad
Page 1
From: sepeers@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:29 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Arthrex Proposai
Dear Planning Commission Members
I want to express my strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that the approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on Bay Colony Golf Club, the golf
course and the local residences. The revisions would permit the
construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to the Club property than anything else in the area. This
would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest
“spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples.
Also closing down Creekside Blvd. will have major traffic implications
and environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an
unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Sylvia Peers
From: japeers@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:02 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Arthrex Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Members
I want to express my strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that the approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on Bay Colony Golf Club, the golf
course and the local residences. The revisions would permit the
construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to the Club property than anything else in the area. This
would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest
“spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples.
Also closing down Creekside Blvd. will have major traffic implications
and environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an
unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Jim Peers
From: Hamilton, Robin M [Robin.Hamilton@morganstanley.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:41 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex Revisions
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Robin Hamilton
Robin M. Hamilton
Senior Vice President I Financial Advisor
Investment Management Consultant I Family Wealth Advisor
Morgan Stanley Wealth Management
8889 Pelican Bay Blvd, Suite 300 I Naples, FL 34108
Direct: 239-449-7863
Toll Free: 800-326-9921
E Fax: 1-239-243-9753
robin.hamilton@morganstanley.com
NMLS# is 1290382
Designated Family Wealth Advisor, focused on helping families plan for generations.
Please visit my website at http://www.morganstanley.com/fa/robin.hamilton
Sharpen your financial focus. Simplify your financial life. Learn more – watch the three minute OneView Video.
Connect with me on LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/robinhamiltonmorganstanley
Follow me on Twitter: @RHamiltonMSSB
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have
received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is
not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor
electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By communicating with Morgan Stanley
you consent to the foregoing and to the voice recording of conversations with personnel of Morgan Stanley.
From: Phil Warren [pwarren@warrencommercial.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:25 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Arthrex spot zoning request
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact the approval of the
proposed 205 feet Arthrex building will have on our club, Bay Colony Golf Club, and the surrounding
area and residences. In addition, the closing of Creekside Blvd. will have major traffic implications to
the area.
Never in my 30 years as a commercial real estate developer have I seen such a flagrant deviation from
current zoning laws with this proposed project which would allow spot zoning totally out of character
for the existing area. There is absolutely no basis for any reasonable land planner to even consider the
height and magnitude of this development in this area of our community. This proposed 205 feet
building is less than 400 feet from single family residents! It’s hard for me to believe this application is
even being considered.
Also, I find it quite unbelievable this project is being fast tracked at a time when most residents and
neighbors affected by this project are not in Naples. I urge you to do the responsible thing and reject
this project.
Sincerely,
Sarah and Phil Warren
645 Via Mezner
Naples , Florida 34108
Phillip A. Warren
Warren Commercial Real Estate, Inc.
5217 Maryland Way
Suite 300
Brentwood, TN 37027
pwarren@warrencommercial.com
615-309-0781 x 102 (o)
615-812-8366 (m)
From: Betty Paluszak [BPaluszak@crawfordgrp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:17 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex update
Attachments: Arthrex update 9-7-16.pdf
Richard Crawford asked I send you the attached
thank you
Betty Paluszak
Accounts Payable/Accounts Receivabe
The Crawford Group/ Crawford Group Investments
Phone 239-593-6160
Fax 239-593-6167
E-mail – bpaluszak@crawfordgrp.com
From: Thomas Dolphin [tpd@21stcenturybank.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:31 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Cc: JerryT@baycolonygolfclub.com; ECBeecher@CBBURNET.COM
Subject: FW: ARTHREX / From two Bay Colony Club Members
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall
building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than
anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has
buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
Finally we offer that after having spent the past Labor Day weekend at the
Club and envisioning the intrusion that this project will have on the
serenity of the grounds that we all enjoy, we must urge you to reject the
application in its entirety. This seems like a really bad idea for a neighbor
to the human recreation aspects of the club and it wild life sanctuary.
Thank you for your consideration of our feelings on this important matter.
Tom Dolphin and Ellen Beecher, 14 year Bay Colony Club Members
Thomas P. Dolphin
CEO
Blaine Office 763-767-21ST MPLS Office 612-378-21ST
Blaine Direct 763-792-3712 MPLS Direct 763-792-3712
Blaine Fax 763-784-9127 MPLS Fax 612-372-4399
9380 Central Ave NE 17 Washington Ave Suite 200
Blaine, Mn 55434 MPLS, MN 55401
tpd@21stcenturybank.com
Note: The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended
solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone other than the recipient is
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or
any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.
From: Court Larkin [cplarkin@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:11 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Fwd: Collier County Planning Commission Email Addresses Corrected
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented
and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The
revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer
to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would
suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or
members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environment
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion
of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.
The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.
Collier County's Planning Commissioners:
Planning Commissioner Email Address
Karen Homiak, Vice Chair karenhomiak@colliergov.net
Diane Ebert dianeebert@colliergov.net
Mark Strain, Chair markstrain@colliergov.net
Stan Chrzanowski stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net
The following photographs taken from the course illustrate the impact the proposed Artrex tower will
have:
Bay Colony Golf Club
9740 Bent Grass Bend
Naples, FL 34108
239-592-9515
Click Here to Stop future Mailings
From: Dave Minella [David@MinellaCap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:36 PM
To: HomiakKaren
Cc: ChrzanowskiStan; EbertDiane; StrainMark
Subject: Major Concerns on Arthrex Building Application Process
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
David A. Minella
Managing Member
Minella Capital Management LLC
9864 Brassie Bend
Naples, FL 34108
Fax: 239-514-5056
Cell: 203-979-2776
From: Tstallkamp [tstallkamp@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:02 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Proposed Arthrex Variance
Dear Mr. Strain,
As an owner of a residence directly impacted by the proposed Arthrex expansion tower, I want to express
my strong negative opinion of their proposal. We invested in our home based on the surrounding
harmonious environment. Our neighborhood contributes significantly to the tax base of Collier County and
we believe the Arthrex proposal would greatly reduce our property value and resale potential.
Further, I am appalled that the Planning Commission would "fast track" this proposal at a time when many
Naples property owners are not in residence. This action is even more difficult to understand when the
notice period for comments to your commission was unreasonably short (Sept 8th deadline). This makes
us suspicious of the intent of the 'fast track" action.
Finally, the leverage used by Arthrex of job creation in Collier County is understandable, but the
Commission must realize that the jobs would not be unique to this location or design. The jobs would be
part of any other building site that would have better access and less environment impact than the
Creekside location. Promises of jobs are often forgotten but this building will be something that can not
be erased.
This building, if built as proposed, would be a permanent negative influence on our community. As
elected officials, please consider the investments taxpayers have already made and not just to for profit
business interests.
Thank you for your consideration,
Thomas T. Stallkamp
1112 Dormie Drive
Naples, FL 34108
From: Tstallkamp [tstallkamp@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:02 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Proposed Arthrex Variance
Dear Mr. Strain,
As an owner of a residence directly impacted by the proposed Arthrex expansion tower, I want to express
my strong negative opinion of their proposal. We invested in our home based on the surrounding
harmonious environment. Our neighborhood contributes significantly to the tax base of Collier County and
we believe the Arthrex proposal would greatly reduce our property value and resale potential.
Further, I am appalled that the Planning Commission would "fast track" this proposal at a time when many
Naples property owners are not in residence. This action is even more difficult to understand when the
notice period for comments to your commission was unreasonably short (Sept 8th deadline). This makes
us suspicious of the intent of the 'fast track" action.
Finally, the leverage used by Arthrex of job creation in Collier County is understandable, but the
Commission must realize that the jobs would not be unique to this location or design. The jobs would be
part of any other building site that would have better access and less environment impact than the
Creekside location. Promises of jobs are often forgotten but this building will be something that can not
be erased.
This building, if built as proposed, would be a permanent negative influence on our community. As
elected officials, please consider the investments taxpayers have already made and not just to for profit
business interests.
Thank you for your consideration,
Thomas T. Stallkamp
1112 Dormie Drive
Naples, FL 34108
From: Robert M Amen [rmamen@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:28 PM
To: StrainMark; HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan
Dear Planning Commission Chariman and Members:
I want to express my strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
I urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Robert Amen
7983 Vizcaya Way
Naples,FL
Bay Colony member
From: Lysa Neitzke [lneitzke@gatr.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:49 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Anthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf
course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building,
more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This
would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few
residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic
implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of
time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
35.txt
From: Stavropoulos Linda [ilindastav@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:00 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Anthrex
Dear Mr. Strain:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact
that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development
revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The
revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than
twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the
area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest
“spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time
when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd.
would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major
issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and
discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Bill and Linda Stavropoulos
Page 1
From: Kerridge, Joyce [jfkerridge@thehighlandgroup.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:29 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Anthrex
Dear Mr. Strain (Chair):
My husband and I would like to express our serious concern about the
negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and extensive
planned unit development revisions proposed by Anthrex would have on
the residences, golf club, golf course within the Bay Colony Golf Club
community. The proposed revisions would permit the construction of a
205-foot tall building, more than twice the height of everything within
site of this community and closer to our property than anything else in
the area. The proposed building is absolutely NOT compatible with local
surroundings. Most discouraging is the fact that this would imply “spot
zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a mere fraction of the size.
Of great concern is the fact that the Anthrex request has been “fast
tracked” and processed knowingly during a time when very few
residents or members are in Naples. At issue: Closing down Creekside
Blvd. would have major negative traffic implications, environmental
impact needs to be considered, new zoning given the existing state of
development within the surrounding area needs to be addressed.
While we are grateful that Anthrex has selected Naples for their business
base and offers employment opportunities for our citizens, we believe
that there must be a reasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure
and discussion of such major changes and their potential impact to our
surrounding community.
The citizens of the Bay Colony community rely on you as the Chair of
the Collier County Planning Commission to properly manage
the development our community. Protection of the investments made by
residents should be at the top of your priority list and not the intrusive
expansion plans of our corporate citizens. We ask that you act in a
manner that is fair and equitable. Today, we urge you to reject the
current Anthrex building expansion application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Joyce and Jim Kerridge
residents, Bay Colony
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be legally privileged, and are
intended solely for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the named addressee, you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately if
you have received this e-mail in error and delete this e-mail from your system. Please note that
any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, e-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late
or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or
omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The
recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company
accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
From: Warren Wilson [warrenjwilson1@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:57 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Warren and Sara Wilson
Bay Colony Estates
9730 Niblick Lane
Naples, FL 34108
From: Mark Aschliman [maschliman@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:14 PM
To: EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan; HomiakKaren
Subject: Arthex Proposal
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the
negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic
planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club,
golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the
construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height
and even closer to our property than anything else in the area.
This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would
suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a
fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed
during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples.
Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic
implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue –
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure
and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Mark and Patricia Aschliman
8990 Bay Colony Drive #103
Naples FL 34108
414-530-4136
The following photographs taken from the course illustrate the impact
the proposed Artrex tower will have:
From: Bryan Haryott [Bryan@qmf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:40 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrax
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Bryan Haryott
From: Peter Negri [pnegri@jamaicabearings.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:27 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Peter Negri President Bay Colony Golf Club
Peter Negri / Chief Executive Officer
ph 516.326.1350 fx 516.355.0336 c 516.459.3133
www.jamaicabearings.com
pnegri@jamaicabearings.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is intended for the named recipient only. The transmission may contain confidential and proprietary information. In that
regard, business, financial, customer, supplier and technical information is confidential and proprietary information of Jamaica Bearings and
Jamaica Bearings has an expectation that such information will be kept confidential, will not be disclosed without specific written authorization
and will only be used to promote business relations with Jamaica Bearings. If you are not the named recipient, please be advised that any
review, use, dissemination or unauthorized copying of the transmitted information (including attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you received
this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the transmitted information in its entirety, whether in electronic
or hard copy format. Thank you.
From: Jack Shilling [jack.shilling@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:28 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Jack and Suzanne Shilling,
Members Bay Colony Golf Club,
Residents and Owners, Bay Colony, Naples, Fl
From: Louise Penta [lpbeach143@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:29 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Louise Penta
From: David@DWAnaples.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:29 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
I want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our
property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible
with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
David Auston, Bay Colony Golf member
Notice of confidentiality: This transmission contains information that may be
confidential and that may also be proprietary; unless you are the intended recipient
of the message (or authorized to receive it for the intended recipient), you should
not copy, forward, or otherwise use it, or disclose its contents to anyone else. If
you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately and delete
it from your system.
“The information, content, materials, or products contained herein are subject to
change and may not be relied upon. David William Auston, PA shall not be liable for
any information contained herein including, but not limited to direct, indirect,
special, incidental, punitive, consequential damages or any damages arising out of or
in any way connected with the use of information contained herein."
From: Betty Fagan [bfagan@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:35 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Betty M. Fagan
From: Thomas Stallkamp [tomstallkamp@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:39 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
From: hphoopis@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:42 PM
To: StrainMark
Cc: jerryt@baycolonygolfclub.com; pnegri@jamaicabearings.com
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Harry P. Hoopis | Chief Executive Officer
Hoopis Performance Network
790 W. Frontage Rd., Ste 300, Northfield, IL 60093
Ph: (847) 716-1821 | F: (847) 716-1801
www.hoopis.com
From: Elizabeth Munz [lizmunz45@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:11 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: RE: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot
tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property
than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently
has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down
Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Thomas and Elizabeth Munz
1249 Waggle Way
Naples, Fl 34108
The following photographs taken from the course illustrate the impact
the proposed Arthrex tower will have:
PuigJudy
From:
L Jaskol <Ijaskol@gmail. com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:51 PM
To:
HomiakKaren, EbertDiane; StrainMark; stanchrzanowski@colliergove.net
Subject:
ARTHREX
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course, and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height
and even closer to our properties than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or
members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Boulevard would have major traffic
implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to
full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety
Thank you.
Lynn A. and Leonard R. Jaskol,
Full-time Residents
The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club
PuigJudy
From:
Dan Murphy <DanMurphy@idealease.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 5:06 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height
and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or
members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion
of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety
Thank you.
Dan Murphy
Member Bay Colony Golf Club
Disclaimer Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, and any attachments and/or documents linked to this email, are intended for the
addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise protected by law. Any dissemination,
distribution, or copying is prohibited. This notice serves as a confidentiality marking for the purpose of any confidentiality or
nondisclosure agreement. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the original sender.
PuigJudy
From:
Wayne Press <hyroller@aol.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 5:10 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
ARTHREX
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you. Toby & Wayne Press
hyroller@aol.com
1
Puig,judy
From: L Jaskol <Ijaskol@gmail. com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 5:25 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: ARTHREX
Dear Planning Commission Members
We want to express our strong and serious concerns about the negative impact that the approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course, and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height
and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or
members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue, with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion
of such major changes .
We respectfully urge you to reject this application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Lynn A. and Leonard R. Jaskol
Full-time Residents
The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club
PuigJudy
From:
Steve Kalmanson <skalmanson@new.rr.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:06 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Steven R Kalmanson
920 540-5683
PuigJudy
From:
Edward Galante <ed.galante@mac.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:21 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic Arthrex planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course
and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the
height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or
members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion
of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety
Thank you.
Cathie & Ed Galante
PuigJudy
From:
TOBY PRESS <tapress204@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:39 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Mr Strain. I am sending this email out of concern that I have about the proposed Arthrex building. At
206 feet tall, it is way too big for the location. towering over anything around it. Also , the traffic in that
area is way too congested already, and there is no room to expand. This building has no place in the
middle of so many residential areas either, where it can be seen from many backyards. Naples used
to be a beautiful town. I've lived in Collier since 1973 , and have seen a lot of changes. Some of the
changes were truly needed, some , not so much. This is a building that does not belong in this
location. That is a fact. Please vote against this proposal. Thanks, Toby Press , 8665 Bay Colony Dr,
Naples, FL
1
PuigJudy
From:
cnicholson65@gmail.com on behalf of Colleen Nicholson <colleen@smartcomputing.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:39 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Bill and Colleen Nicholson
PuigJudy
From:
Rebecca Palmer <royalbunnyl956@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 2:44 AM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
ARTHREX
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height
and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or
members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion
of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Collier County's Planning Commissioners:
Plannine
Commissioner
Karen Homiak, Vice
Chair
Diane Ebert
Mark Strain, Chair
Stan Chrzanowski
Sincerely,
Rebecca R Palmer
Sent from my iPad
Email Address
karenhomiakgcolliergov.net
dianeebertna colliergov.net
markstraingeollier og v.net
stanchrzanowskigeollier ov.net
PuigJudy
From:
Bob Fauls <bob@fauls.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 3:47 AM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you,
Bob & Chris Fauls
PuigJudy
From:
Cheryl Grant <czgrant@twcny.rr.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 8:17 AM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Arthur and Cheryl Grant
361 Cromwell Ct
Naples, Fl 34108
NThis email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
1
PuigJudy
From:
Brad Merkel <merkelbrad@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 9:01 AM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Planning
Commissioner
Karen Homiak,
Vice Chair
Diane Ebert
Mark Strain, Chair
Stan Chrzanowski
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious
concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic
planned unit development revisions would
have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the
construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more
than twice the height and even closer to our
property than anything else in the area. This
would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning"
on a site that currently has buildings a fraction
of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked"
and processed during a time when very few
residents or members are in Naples. Closing
down Creekside Blvd. would have major
traffic implications. Environmental concerns
are also a major issue — with an unreasonable
amount of time allotted to full disclosure and
discussion of such major changes.
1
We urge you to reject the application in its
entirety.
Thank you.
Brad & Mina Merkel
12519 Colliers Reserve Drive
Naples, FI 34110
PuigJudy
From:
HAL COHEN <topspeen@aol.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 9:19 AM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height
and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or
members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion
of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety
Thank you.
Hal Cohen
PuigJudy
From:
Tony McMunn <tmcmunn@tricam.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 10:35 AM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf
course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more
than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not
be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has
buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few
residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic
implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Tony McMunn
1
PuigJudy
From:
Sdpryor74 <sdpryor74@ao1.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:00 PM
To:
StrainMark; HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; stanchranowski@colIiergov.net
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Commissioners,
I am a new resident of Bay Colony Estates and am currently undergoing a major renovation of my
home. In making this major investment, I relied on existing zoning restrictions.
Erection of a 205 foot building near our property line would erode property and club membership
values at Bay Colony and Colliers Reserve to the tune of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
In addition, thousands of motorists each day would be negatively impacted. Beyond that, this building
would be a major step in changing the character of Naples from a high-end residential environment to
a urbanized one, ultimately IMPACTING THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS. If local citizens were given
the opportunity to understand the facts and have their voices heard, I believe that the vast majority
would be opposed to this proposed development.
> I attended the Arthrex information session and was appalled that the company offered no real
answers regarding the impacts on residents, motorists and the environment. Frankly, this major
proposal has been handled by Arthrex in a stealthy manner, and rushing it through while a majority of
residents are out of town is unreasonable, unjust and unseemly. It would be a failure of duty to the
public you serve
I urge you to reject the Arthrex proposal in its entirety.
Respectfully,
Stephen and Katherine Pryor
Sent from my iPad
PuigJudy
From: BWyckoff@tweedy.com
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:45 AM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf
course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building,
more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This
would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few
residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic
implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
--------------= ===NOTE==— --------------------
The information information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
this e-mail. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail
(postmaster@tweedy.com) and destroy the original message. E-mail transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be
secure or error -free. We cannot accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this message. This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be interpreted as any offer regarding any
financial instrument. In accordance with firm policy, all e-mails sent to and from Tweedy, Browne Company
are subject to review. Thank you.
PuigJudy
From:
david.mcavoy@nm.com
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:54 AM
To:
StrainMark
Cc:
JerryThirion@BayColonyGolfClub.com
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dave McAvoy
Northwestern Mutual
David C. McAvoy
Managing Partner
One Beacon Street, 25th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: 617-742-6200 Fax: 617-227-8797
david.mcavoy@nm.com
Northwestern Mutual (NM) is the marketing name for the sales and distribution arm of The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Company, Milwaukee, WI (NM), and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company, a
wholly-owned company of NM and limited purpose federal savings bank. NM is nota partnership or legal entity. David C. McAvoy is
a General Agent of NM (life insurance, annuities and disability income insurance) and Northwestern Long Term Care Insurance
Company, Milwaukee, WI, a subsidiary of NM (long term care insurance). Registered Representative and Investment Adviser
Representative of Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108, 617-742-6200, a wholly-
owned company of NM, broker-dealer, registered investment adviser and member FINRA and SIPC. NM and the Boston Group are
not broker-dealers or registered investment advisers. Managing Partners are not in legal partnership with each other, NM or its
affiliates. There may be instances when agents of NM represent companies in addition to NM or its affiliates.
Your transmission of electronic mail to this address represents your consent to two-way communication by Internet e-mail. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer on which it exists.
Northwestern Mutual, its subsidiaries and affiliates may review and retain incoming and outgoing electronic
mail for this e-mail address for quality assurance and regulatory compliance purposes. Please be advised that
communications with f SECURE MESSAGE} in the subject line have been sent using a secure messaging
system. Communications that do not have this tag may not be secure and could be observed by a third party.
If you prefer not to receive any e-mail communication from Northwestern Mutual or our Financial
Representatives, please click the following link: "E -Mail Opt -out from Northwestern Mutual'
In the event that you cannot click on the above link, the Northwestern Mutual E -Mail Opt -out form can be
found at the following URL: https:Hservice.nmfn.com/cbpeopt/EmailOptOut.do.
Northwestern Mutual
720 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4797.
PuigJudy
From:
Carol Lund <carol@]undcapital.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:12 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Carol Lund
PuigJudy
From:
Tom Lund <tom@lundcapital.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:14 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Tom Lund
PuigJudy
From: Gaylene Vasaturo <gaylenevasaturo@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:05 PM
To: StrainMark
Cc: NanceTim
Subject: Creekside Commerce Park CPUD Sept. 15th CCPC meeting
I am a resident of North Naples and I'm writing to ask that you deny
Arthrex's and Creekside East, Inc.'s proposal to expand development of
Creekside Commerce Park into a conservation easement protected
preserve on the east side of Goodlette Frank Road. Deviation #3 proposes
releasing 2.3 acres of the existing conservation easement preserved land to
allow development on this portion of the preserve. I ask that the Planning
Commission recommend denial of Deviation #3.
The preserved area was set aside in a perpetual conservation easement by
the owner, Creekside East, Inc., in exchange for the County allowing it to
develop the balance of its property. A conservation easement is a contract
to protect in perpetuity lands for the benefit of residents, wildlife and
water resources. The community relied on this promise. Preserve areas
are important to the quality of life in Naples, particularly with so much
development occurring in North Naples and elsewhere. Areas of native
vegetation are becoming rare in urban Collier County.
There seems to be a disturbing trend for developers in Collier County to
seek to develop land they previously were required to set aside by
conservation easement. This should not be allowed. Please recognize the
value of the preserve areas to Collier County residents.
In addition, while Deviation #3 is part of Arthrex's application currently
going through the County process, as previously noted Creekside East
owns the preserve, not Arthrex. Removal of Deviation #3 will not have a
direct bearing on Arthrex's proposed improvements to its campus on the
west side of Goodlette Frank Road. Denial of expansion into the preserve
will have no impact on Arthrex's plans for its campus footprint.
Sincerely,
Gaylene Vasaturo
cc: Collier County Board of Commissioners
PuigJudy
From:
Nancy Walls <Nancy@gcmworks.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 9:05 AM
To:
StrainMark
Cc:
Kenneth D Ullman
Subject:
On Behalf of Kenneth D. Ullman Bay Colony Resident
Dear Planning Commission Member
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf
course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more
than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not
be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has
buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents
or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications.
Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full
disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety
Thank you.
Kenneth D. Ullman
Bay Colony Golf Club Resident
1270 Waggle Way
Naples, FL 34108
201-805-7855
1
PuigJudy
From: Strain, Charles <CStrain@FarrellFritz.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 5:18 PM
To: karehomiak@colliergov.net; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Proposed Arthrex Development
Dear Planning Commission Members: I am a member of the Bay Colony Golf Club and a North Naples resident. I want to
express my strong concern about the negative impact of the proposed Arthrex development. If approved, the
unprecedented, proposed PUD revisions would represent impermissible "spot zoning" resulting in a development
project that is completely out of character with the surrounding community. The proposed height and bulk of the
project requires careful and thorough consideration of all of the impacts on the community. The fast tracking of this
project by Collier County is untenable and I urge you to reject the application in its entirety.- Charles Strain
Charles M. Strain
Partner
Farrell Fritz, P.C.
1320 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
Tel: 516-227-0703
Fax: 516-227-0777
Direct Fax: 516-336-2201
e-mail: cstrain(cDfarrellfritz.com
IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax -related penalties under federal, state or
local tax law or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any
computer,
PuigJudy
From:
Tom Moore <mooredoctom@aol.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Proposed building
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height
and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or
members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion
of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Collier County's Planning Commissioners:
Plannin¢
Commissioner
Karen Homiak, Vice
Chair
Diane Ebert
Mark Strain, Chair
Stan Chrzanowski
The
following
photographs
taken from
the course
illustrate the
impact the
proposed
Artrex tower
will have:
F
Email Address
karenhomiak(a collier og vnet
dianeebert(a colliergov.net
markstraingeolliergov.net
stanchrzanowski@collier ov.net
PuigJudy
From:
GERALD SOMMERS <jsommers@prodigy.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 5:02 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Re: Arthrex
Attachments:
Scan0006.pdf
Hi Mark, please see attachment, Gerald Sommers
September 7, 2016
To: Mark Strain, Chair
Planning Commissioner
From: Gerald Sommers
Re: Arthrex
Dear Mark:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Please, please do the right thing for Naples, this is why we have zoning codes to
guard against this happening, and only you can stop this from happening.
Thank you.
Gerald 1 Sommers
9771 Bentgrass Bend
Naples, FL 34108
PuigJudy
From:
Lisa Howard <Ihoward@siriuslp.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:10 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
RE: ARTHREX
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Peter Foreman
Sirius Partners, L.P.
312.443.5246
peter@siriuslp.com
This email message (including any attachments) is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be
construed as an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to buy, any interest in any entity or other investment vehicle. Any
information relating to past performance of any of the funds offered by Sirius Partners LP should not be construed as an indication
of future results. This email message has been prepared using information believed by the author to be reliable and accurate, but
Sirius Partners LP makes no warranty as to accuracy or completeness.
This email message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately.
PuigJudy
From: Henry Scharling <he.scharling@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 7:17 AM
To: StrainMark; Peter Negri
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
H.E. Scharling
PuigJudy
From: Frank Hermance <frank.hermance@ametek.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 6:23 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Cc: Cheri Hermance (cherihermance@gmail.com)
Subject: Upcoming Meeting
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Frank Hermance
9767 Bentgrass Bend, Naples, Fl. 34108
PuigJudy
From: Elwaldron@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:32 PM
To: StrainMark
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Commissioner 5train-we are hopefuul you will NOT approve the Artkrax building currently
proposed. It is an eyesore! F velyn & Hicks Waldron
PuigJudy
From:
Aris Kaplanis <ariskaplanis@gmail. com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:44 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthex
Dera Commissioner,
Please do not proceed with the Arthex zoning amendment and variance. It
is far to broad
Aris Kaplanis
PuigJudy
From:
Denise Strain <denise.strain@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 10:31 AM
To:
HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; stranchrzanowski@colliergov.net
Cc:
Denise.Strain@gmall.com
Subject:
Arth rex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
I am a resident of North Naples and a member of the Bay Colony Country Club. I am writing to express my strong
concern about the negative impact the approval of the Arthrex project would have on the Bay Colony Country Club as
well as the Naples community. Residents and visitors to Naples today appreciate the balance the community leaders
have achieved for the needs of the residents, cultural groups, and business concerns. Approving this new building will
have a deleterious impact on traffic, the environment and the overall aesthetic appeal of our town. The Planning
Commission should also consider the precedential effect of this project. Once approved other business concerns will
look to take similar steps to build out their properties.
Any change to the zoning rules, especially a change this significant, should be given thoughtful review with input from
the community. "Fast tracking" this application is totally inappropriate and should be halted.
I urge you to reject this application in its entirety.
Thank you for your consideration.
Denise Strain
Denise.Strain@gmail.com
(516)314-6382
PuigJudy
From:
Donald Redlinger <donredlinger@gmail. com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 10:26 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex Building proposal
As a local resident and member of neighboring Bay Colony Golf Club, I am opposed to the fast track
consideration to the Arthrex proposal to build a skyscraper in our neighborhood. We all appreciate the
wonderful things Arthrex has done for our economy and community but believe that their great track
record will be undone if their proposed building design is not modified to accommodate their
neighbors' concerns. Please help us reach a compromise!
Sent from my iPad
PuigJudy
From:
Verne Istock <vgistock@charter.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:13 PM
To:
StrainMark
Cc:
HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject:
Arthrex project
Dear Chairman Strain,
My wife and I have been members of Bay Colony Golf Club for the past 16 years and have a home on Mashie Court with
sight lines to the proposed tower. While we would not like to see the tower itself, our biggest concerns are the impact
this project will have from an environmental and density standpoint. The Immokalee road is already a highly congested
area and this project will make it far worse in addition to eliminating one of the roads behind the shopping center.
We strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject this project in its entirety.
Very truly yours,
Verne and Judy Istock
9659 Mashie Court.
PuiaJud
From: Trina Calarese <trina@caldevel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 6:58 PM
To: EbertDiane; StrainMark
Cc: HomiakKaren; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Arthrex Project
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Roger V Calarese
508-528-3700
I
PuiaJud
From:
DOSE Burnham <sueburnham1@aol.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:21 PM
To:
HomiakKaren, EbertDiane; Strain Mark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As residents of Naples, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the current
requested zoning exceptions being made by Arthrex in respect of the building that they
propose.
The first concern is the height of the proposed building. At 205 feet, it is our
understanding that this would be almost 3 times the height of any other off the water
building in Naples. There are two parts to this concern. Approval of this tall building
will most certainly set and be used as a precedent for other similar buildings in off the
water locations, perhaps even locally. Clearly, this size building does not fit within
the character of Naples and will have a significant impact on surrounding properties not
only in this case but in all future cases as well. One such impact is the amount of and
timing of sunlight, one of the key interests of people in Florida. Of course, a second
impact is simply the visual of such an unusually tall building all neighbors for quite a
distance from its site. This building alone will add to traffic congestion in the area
which is of course why they are requesting that the road be rerouted. This is an
important road for access by other businesses as well as residents to easily access the
Post Office and travel from both Tamiami and Goodlette Frank. As regular users of this
road, it will create a significant disadvantage to us and likewise to others who may not
even realize that the changes are being considered. The fast tracking of this project
during the off season when many residents, and taxpayers, who spend more than half of the
year in Naples has a very bad sense about it. A project of this significance seems to
warrant the full exposure during "season" to allow the fullest participation by the
residents of Naples particularly neighbors and others impacted by this dramatic change in
building standards of buildings off of the water. Deferring consideration until full
communication and ultimate participation would be a positive outcome and should not
measurably alter the proposal. It would however be more in line with the spirit of the
Florida Sunshine Law.
As members of Bay Colony Golf Club, we as other neighbors, will be impacted by the
enormous comparative size of this building. Impacts include sight lines, travel in the
area, amount of sunlight at certain times of year and with the precedent set, the
probability that other buildings of this size will begin to appear in the area. This
will significantly affect the usage and of course, has the potential to affect values
of properties of all neighbors.
Arthrex has been and is a good neighbor and all wish them continued success and the
continued local growth. However, there must be an alternative to this exceptionally
high building in an area otherwise populated with buildings of shorter dimension.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Duane and Susan Burnham
8477 Bay Colony Dr
Naples, FL
1
PuigJudy
From:
James Wagner <jwagner140@ao1.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:44 PM
To:
StrainMark
Subject:
Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious
concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic
planned unit development revisions would
have on our golf club, golf course and
residences. The revisions would permit the
construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more
than twice the height and even closer to our
property than anything else in the area. This
would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning"
on a site that currently has buildings a fraction
of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked"
and processed during a time when very few
residents or members are in Naples. Closing
down Creekside Blvd. would have major
traffic implications. Environmental concerns
are also a major issue — with an unreasonable
amount of time allotted to full disclosure and
discussion of such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its
entirety.
Thank you.
James A and Diana L Wagner
1
PuiaJud
From: Barbara Morrison <barbaralmorrison@gmail. com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:46 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Barbara and Dale Morrison
1278 Waggle Way
Naples, FL 34108
1
•
Jerry Thirion
From: Thomas Dolphin <tpd@2lstcenturybank.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:31 PM
To: karenhomiak@colliergov.net;dianeebert@colliergov.net; markstrain@colliergov.net;
stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net
Cc: Jerry Thirion; ECBeecher@CBBURNET.COM
Subject: FW:ARTHREX/ From two Bay Colony Club Members
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative
impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit
development revisions would have on our golf club,golf course and
residences.The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall
building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than
anything else in the area.This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest"spot zoning" on a site that currently has
buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition,the request has been"fast tracked"and processed during a
time when very few residents or members are in Naples.Closing down
Creekside Blvd.would have major traffic implications. Environmental
concerns are also a major issue—with an unreasonable amount of time
allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes.
Finally we offer that after having spent the past Labor Day weekend at the
Club and envisioning the intrusion that this project will have on the
serenity of the grounds that we all enjoy, we must urge you to reject the
application in its entirety. This seems like a really bad idea for a neighbor
to the human recreation aspects of the club and it wild life sanctuary.
Thank you for your consideration of our feelings on this important matter.
Tom Dolphin and Ellen Beecher, 14 year Bay Colony Club Members
Thomas P. Dolphin
CEO
Blaine Office 763-767-21ST MPLS Office 612-378-21sT
Blaine Direct 763-792-3712 MPLS Direct 763-792-3712
Blaine Fax 763-784-9127 MPLS Fax 612-372-4399
9380 Central Ave NE 17 Washington Ave Suite 200
Blaine,Mn 55434 MPLS,MN 55401
tpd@21stcenturybank.com
1
Jerry Thirion
From: hphoopis@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:42 PM
To: markstrain@colliergov.net
Cc: Jerry Thirion; pnegri@jamaicabearings.com
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Harry P. Hoopis I Chief Executive Officer
Hoopis Performance Network
790 W. Frontage Rd., Ste 300, Northfield, IL 60093
Ph: (847) 716-1821 I F: (847) 716-1801
www.hoopis.com
Jerry Thirion
From: Harshman, Rich <Rich.Harshman@ATImetals.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:58 PM
To: karenhomiak@colliergov.net;dianeebert@colliergov.net;
stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net; markstrain@colliergov.net
Cc: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
My wife and I are members of the Bay Colony Golf Club. We want to express our
strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the
unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our
golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction
of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our
property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local
surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings
a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Harshman
Scheryl C. Harshman
8665 Bay Colony Drive
#1602
Naples, FL 34108
*ATI
Richard J. Harshman
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Jerry Thirion
From: Basil Anderson <basil.and@comcast.net>
Sent Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:46 PM
To: karenhomiak@colliergov.net;dianeebert@colliergov.net; markstrain@colliergov.net;
stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net
Subject: Arthrex project- please reject!
Dear Planning Commission Member,
My wife and I selected Naples as our primary residence because of the unique nature of this
town. We happily sold our place on the East Coast and have been delighted to live here.
We strongly oppose the proposed plan to build the Arthrex building as a 205 foot tall building.
The reasons for our opposition are fourfold:
1. Once such a building is approved, the "genie is out of the bottle" and that will set a precedent
for future buildings of similar height; 2. Such a tall building changes the architectural view of
North Naples which makes it unappealing versus the current buildings in the area. If approved,
we would move towards the unattractive "East Coast" model; 3. We joined the Bay Colony
Golf Club and love the serene nature of that club. If approved, this new building absolutely
destroys the look and feel of an outstanding club which attracts successful people to Naples. I
believe your Commission would do Naples a tremendous dis favor if such a monstrosity is
approved.
4. There are many many sites to develop business and office spaces without changing the very
nature of Naples that has attracted so many of us to this part of Florida.
I urge you to reject this project as proposed.
Thanks for your consideration.
Basil and Patti Anderson
239-206-4481(o)
Sent from my iPad
Jerry Thirion
From: Heidi Bogenschneider <hbogen@teel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:43 PM
To: Jerry Thirion; pnegri@jamaicabearings.com
Subject FW:Arthrex
Good afternoon,
have sent the email.
Thanks,
Jay Smith
From:Jay Smith
Sent:Wednesday,September 07,2016 1:30 PM
To: 'markstrain@colliergov.net'<markstrain@colliergov.net>
Cc: 'dianeebert@colliergov.net'<dianeebert@colliergov.net>; 'stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net'
<stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net>; 'karenhomiak@colliergov.net'<karenhomiak@colliergov.net>
Subject:Arthrex
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that
approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions
would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would
permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and
even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be
compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that
currently has buildings a fraction of that size.
In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when
very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would
have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue —
with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of
such major changes.
We urge you to reject the application in its entirety.
Thank you,
Mr. & Mrs. Jay & Pat Smith
Jerry Thirion
From: DL/SE Burnham <sueburnhaml@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:21 PM
To: karenhomiak@colliergov.net;dianeebert@colliergov.net; markstrain@colliergov.net;
stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As residents of Naples, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the current
requested zoning exceptions being made by Arthrex in respect of the building that they
propose.
The first concern is the height of the proposed building. At 205 feet, it is our
understanding that this would be almost 3 times the height of any other off the water
building in Naples. There are two parts to this concern. Approval of this tall building
will most certainly set and be used as a precedent for other similar buildings in off the
water locations, perhaps even locally. Clearly, this size building does not fit within
the character of Naples and will have a significant impact on surrounding properties not
only in this case but in all future cases as well. One such impact is the amount of and
timing of sunlight, one of the key interests of people in Florida. Of course, a second
impact is simply the visual of such an unusually tall building all neighbors for quite a
distance from its site. This building alone will add to traffic congestion in the area
which is of course why they are requesting that the road be rerouted. This is an
important road for access by other businesses as well as residents to easily access the
Post Office and travel from both Tamiami and Goodlette Frank. As regular users of this
road, it will create a significant disadvantage to us and likewise to others who may not
even realize that the changes are being considered. The fast tracking of this project
during the off season when many residents, and taxpayers, who spend more than half of the
year in Naples has a very bad sense about it. A project of this significance seems to
warrant the full exposure during "season" to allow the fullest participation by the
residents of Naples particularly neighbors and others impacted by this dramatic change in
building standards of buildings off of the water. Deferring consideration until full
communication and ultimate participation would be a positive outcome and should not
measurably alter the proposal. It would however be more in line with the spirit of the
Florida Sunshine Law.
As members of Bay Colony Golf Club, we as other neighbors, will be impacted by the
enormous comparative size of this building. Impacts include sight lines, travel in the
area, amount of sunlight at certain times of year and with the precedent set, the
probability that other buildings of this size will begin to appear in the area. This
will significantly affect the usage and of course, has the potential to affect values
of properties of all neighbors.
Arthrex has been and is a good neighbor and all wish them continued success and the
continued local growth. However, there must be an alternative to this exceptionally
high building in an area otherwise populated with buildings of shorter dimension.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Duane and Susan Burnham
8477 Bay Colony Dr
Naples, FL
1
Jerry Thirion
From: Peter Negri <pnegri@jamaicabearings.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:47 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Fwd:Arthrex
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sdpryor74 <sdpryor74@aol.com>
Date: September 7,2016 at 7:30:40 PM EDT
To: <pnegri(a�jamaicabearings.com>
Cc: Pat Corrigan<pat@yellowgroupllc.com>
Subject: Fwd: Arthrex
Pete,this is the note I sent to the planning commission in response to your email. I may have
gotten their titles wrong but hopefully the message is clear. Steve
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sdpryor74 <sdpryor74@aol.com>
Date: September 7, 2016 at 1:59:49 PM EDT
To: markstrain@colliergov.net,karenhomiakAcolliergov.net,
dianeebert@colliergov.net,stanchranowski@colliergov.net
Subject: Arthrex
Dear Commissioners,
I am a new resident of Bay Colony Estates and am currently undergoing a major
renovation of my home. In making this major investment, I relied on existing
zoning restrictions.
Erection of a 205 foot building near our property line would erode property and
club membership values at Bay Colony and Colliers Reserve to the tune of
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. In addition,thousands of motorists
each day would be negatively impacted. Beyond that,this building would be a
major step in changing the character of Naples from a high-end residential
environment to a urbanized one, ultimately IMPACTING THOUSANDS OF
RESIDENTS. If local citizens were given the opportunity to understand the facts
and have their voices heard, I believe that the vast majority would be opposed to
this proposed development.
I attended the Arthrex information session and was appalled that
the company offered no real answers regarding the impacts on
residents, motorists and the environment. Frankly, this major
proposal has been handled by Arthrex in a stealthy manner, and
rushing it through while a majority of residents are out of town is
unreasonable,unjust and unseemly. It would be a failure of duty to
the public you serve
I urge you to reject the Arthrex proposal in its entirety.
Respectfully,
Stephen and Katherine Pryor
Sent from my iPad
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:The information transmitted(including attachments)is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.2510-2521,and is
intended for the named recipient only.The transmission may contain confidential and proprietary information.In that regard,business,financial,customer,supplier
and technical information is confidential and proprietary information of Jamaica Bearings and Jamaica Bearings has an expectation that such information will be kept
confidential,will not be disclosed without specific written authorization and will only be used to promote business relations with Jamaica Bearings.If you are not the
named recipient,please be advised that any review,use,dissemination or unauthorized copying of the transmitted information(including attachments)is strictly
prohibited.If you received this transmission in error,please immediately contact the sender and destroy the transmitted information in its entirety,whether in
electronic or hard copy format.Thank you.
2
John D.Miller
1274 Waggle Way
Naples,FL 34108
239-653-9885
September 7,2016
Mark Strain,Chair
Karen Homiak,Vice Chair
Diane Ebert
Stan Chrzanowski
Collier County Planning Commission
karenhomiak@colliergov.org
Dear Commissioners:
We are new residents of Naples having made the decision to relocate from New York in 2015.We
have been coming to Naples for a number of years and still own a condominium in The
Remington at Bay Colony.When we decided to move to Naples full-time and enroll our daughter
in school here,it was clear that we needed more space as well as a community to settle in. After
searching out many different neighborhoods,we found a home we love and have invested over$5
million in The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club.Imagine our surprise when we recently learned
that Collier County was working with Arthrex Corp.to allow them to build a building the height
of which far exceeds what was allowable under the local zoning in effect when we bought our
home just a year ago.We were stunned to find out that the proposed building was not just double
or even triple the current allowed height but rather almost 6 times the current maximum of 35'at a
whopping 205'!To say we are upset is a serious understatement.
I recently attended the"dog and pony"show put on at Arthrex meant to allow the surrounding
communities the chance to voice their opinions on this matter and came away feeling I had
probably wasted several hours on something that seems to be a fait accompli(defined as a thing
that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it,leaving them with
no option but to accept it).The reactions on the faces to resident's concerns by several of the
representatives present all but confirmed my opinion that the meeting was nothing more than a
checking the box in a process that was already all sewn up.
I'm not going to go into what my personal loss may be from the devaluation of my property value,
that is for my attorneys to take up at a later date.What I will tell you is that the entire area will
lose over time as this precedent setting event highlights the fact that if allowed,there appears to
be no"planning"being done in Collier County. Clearly no area will be safe from drastic changes
to zoning and therefore although I moved to an affected community this time,it seems I might not
have been safe in any community in Collier County.
I chose to move to Naples after looking on the east coast for many reasons including the beauty of
the area. I trust that as the members of the Planning Commission,you will do your jobs to
represent all of us in keeping our community one which will continue to attract residents who are
concerned about where we live.At the very least,I hope you will postpone your decision on a
matter that is being rammed through (there wasn't even a final design in place at the meeting)at a
time when many of those affected are not even in residence.The plan calls for a loss of a nature
area that will affect our waters,closing of a road which will only exacerbate traffic problems that
already exist and will change the character of North Naples forever.It seems only prudent that you
exercise your fiduciary duties to all of those you represent and at least slow down this process
until we all(you included)have seen what will be built and heard from the numerous citizens
who will have to live with your decision forever.
Respectfully,
John D.Miller
2 ft
Jerry Thirion
'rom: Joyce Albers <joyce.albers@verizon.net>
-sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:21 AM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: FW: Arthrex Corporation Application
Dear Jerry,
Thank you for keeping us informed. I forwarded your note to a friend who is an attorney and asked for his thoughts.
I am forwarding his response so that you have the benefit of his thinking. I'm sure it is not new for you.
Georg and I will send you a separate personal letter expressing our concerns. We are scheduled to be back in Naples on
Oct. 25t' so hopefully we can attend the mentioned meeting. I know from many land use battles that have been fought
here in Princeton, NJ that it makes a huge difference if you have a large turnout at meetings. Perhaps we should all
contact our year round friends in Naples to attend the August 30th meeting. If any can attend should I provide you with
their names?
Best regards,
Joyce Albers-Schonberg
From: Arnold Chait [ma i Ito: acha it@vccsiaw.com]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 12:01 PM
To: 'Joyce Albers-Schonberg'
Subject: Arthrex Corporation Application
Joyce: I am providing my thoughts without the benefit of knowing the land use restrictions that govern the Creekside
^ommercial Planned Unit Development ("CCPUD").
The communities and adjacent neighbors should retain a licensed planner to review the previously approved
Development Plan, the applicable land use restrictions, and the current application and plans. The concerns and
objections of the neighboring communities should be backed up at the hearing by the testimony of a qualified
land use planner.
Land use applications tend to have a political dimension. There is a tension between encouraging and
accommodating new ratables and uses that benefit the general public vs protecting the existing neighboring
taxpayers from adverse impacts. Voting Board tend to count noses at public hearings to assess the political
impact of their decision. It is therefore very important that there be an impressive attendance of objectors at
each public meeting on the application and that objectors utilize the hearing opportunity to verbally express
their objections.
3. In terms of objections written or oral the following appear to be relevant:
a. The CCPUD was previously approved and deemed satisfactory to the Board and Applicant. How will
the reasons for modifying the CCPUD beneficial to existing residents as distinguished from the economic
benefit to the applicant?
b. The proposed deviation permitting an increase in height from 46 feet to 205 feet is excessive. There is
ample land available to accommodate the proposed additional square feet of building area.
c. The 205 foot height is grossly out of proportion to the character of the area and destroys the planned
open space and views.
d. Permitting a 205 foot structure in this area creates the opportunity for other applicants to seek similar
height deviations.
Arnold H. Chait, Esq.
Vogel, Chait, Collins and Schneider, P.C.
25 Lindsley Drive, Suite 200
Morristown, New Jersey 07960-4454
Phone: (973) 538-3800
Fax: (973) 538-3002
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the
original message.
2
Jerry Thirion
'rom:
Jay Moorin <jaym@proquestvc.com>
cent:
Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:19 AM
To:
Jerry Thirion
Cc:
Elaine Moorin; pat@yellowgroupllc.com
Subject:
RE: Arthrex
Jerry,
When we bought our home in the Estates of Bay Colony we actually checked the zoning laws to make sure that no hi rise
building would be built in proximity to our neighborhood. If we wanted a tall building looking over our house or golf
course, we would have bought in a different area. This proposed change, is not fair, and not what we bought.
There is also a big issue with the increased traffic that this development would cause on the roads around our
neighborhood.
We .should do everything possible to stop this unfair development.
Jay and Elaine Moorin
From: Jerry Thirion [mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:02 PM
To: Jay Moorin <jaym@proquestvc.com>
abject: Arthrex
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
Jerry Thirion
'rom:
Denny McGonigal <dennis@mcgonigal.org>
,ent:
Monday, August 22, 2016 10:24 AM
To:
Jerry Thirion
Cc:
'sheila kay'
Subject:
RE: Arthrex
If there is anything we can do ,please let us know as we do not want this to happen. Denny&Sheila
Denny McGonigal
dennis@mcgonigal.org
847-226-9916
From: Jerry Thirion [mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:02 PM
To: Dennis McGonigal
Subject: Arthrex
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
I
Jerry Thirion
'rom: Tony Panzica, P.E. <tonyp@panzica.com>
.ent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:58 AM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: RE: Arthrex
I agree with the comments in the Pritt report. Therefore asking for more time to study all the issues raised , would be
prudent.
Tony
Tony Panzica, P.E.
President / CEO
Direct Dial: 440-449-4110
Mobile: 216-469-1421
tonypt D_panzica.com
Panzica Construction Company
739 Beta Drive
Layfield Village, Ohio 44143
40-442-4300 // F: 440--442-4179
www.panzica.com
2016 - Celebrating 60 Years of Building Excellence!
Confidentiality Notice: The information in this e-mail message, and any attachment, is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it
was addressed. This e-mail may contain information which is privileged and confidential and which may be protected from disclosure. If you are not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or
copying of it, or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this message in error please e-mail the sender and destroy all copies of
this communication and any attachments
From: Jerry Thirion[mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:02 PM
To: Tony Panzica, P.E. <tonyp@panzica.com>
Subject: Arthrex
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Jerry Thirion
from: Carol Lund <carol@lundcapital.com>
ent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 4:16 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Thank you, Jerry. We believe this is a total violation of all written and implied agreements on commercial
building codes in this area of town. We should fight this w/ all available resources.
Count on us to contribute to this defense. Please keep us updated.
Kind regards, Tom & Carol
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <baycolonygoifclubLa mailer.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples
Jerry Thirion
"7rom: Kim Rosenberg <krosenb@hotmail.com>
.ent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 1:01 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: RE: Arthrex
The Rosenbergs are supportive of the effort to reduce the impact of the proposed Arthrex building.
Kim
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:02:09 -0400
Subject: Arthrex
To: krosenb@hotmail.com
From: baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples
I
Jerry Thirion
7rom: Edward Galante <ed.galante@mac.com>
:ent: Sunday, August 21, 201612:49 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Jerry,
I support the position the club is taking in this matter. It appears to me that, at this juncture, there are more
questions than answers; including why they would allow so tall a structure that is out of character with the
community surrounding it? What's the hurry? Why not take the time to answer all the questions in the Pritt
summary plus others that members of their community might have?
All the best,
Ed Galante
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirioncbaycalonygolfclub(@mailenmemfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
I
Jerry Thirion
prom: UR <Irutig@aol.com>
ent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 11:12 AM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Jerry
Having a 22 story building overlooking our golf course is certainly a reason for concern
Planned development restrictions such as building height is meant to protect existing and future property
owners from radical changes in the character of the environment.
This change if approved would have a negative effect on golf club member recruitment and therefore
membership cost and equity value.
Lou Rutigliano
On Aug 19, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <ba colon olfclub mailer.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click ;•sere to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
Jerry Thirion
From:
John Griswold <jgriswold@me.com>
.ent:
Saturday, August 20, 2016 6:49 PM
To:
Jerry Thirion
Cc:
Debra Griswold; Peter Negri; Pat Corrigan
Subject:
Re: Arthrex
Jerry - I am sorry that I cannot attend the meeting. I am pretty much up to speed on this as I have been briefed
several times in my roe as a board member of the Bay Colony Estates Homeowners Association.
However, I want to respond to you so my voice can be included.
I very much oppose this huge overreach by the Arthrex Corporation and the local and state politicians who are
backing this obvious significant change to existing regulations that are attached to the PUD. My wife and I
specifically invested in Bay Colony Estates because we did not want a residence that looked at tall buildings. In
my opinion, this proposed change is un called for and unnecessary. Arthex should live with the development
deal they originally made and not be allowed to modify their buildings after others have invested based upon the
limitations of the PUD and other local development restrictions. The county commission and planning
committee should retain the existing limits on this development. It is absurd for the local politicians to approve
a modification to the PUD to allow such a large and tall building, (that adds to the traffic count, reduces open
space and may well reduce property values in near by neighborhoods) to be built in this area!
John and Debra Griswold
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <ba c olfclub ,,,mailer.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
flick Herato View as a Web Pace
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
Jerry Thirion
rrom: Thomas Dolphin <tpd@21stcenturybank.com>
.ent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 5:55 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Cc: ECBeecher@CBBURNET.COM
Subject: RE: Arthrex- A Bay Colony Members Opinion
Jerry, Thank you for the update on the Arthrex project that has been proposed to the north of Bay Colony Golf Club. As
a members of the club Ellen I would encourage our Board to do all we can to deter the building of such a visual invasion
of our Bay Colony Club and its surrounding residential community and nature preservation area.
The height scale of this project in relation to everything else around it is doesn't seem to make any sense to us. There
appears to be ample land to spread the project thus cut down on the height scale. I do not see anything of 205' which at
12' per floor that is 17 stories high building anywhere throughout Naples, except the condos on the beach areas. I
would hope that our government officials are concerned with setting a height precedent in our area and near other
residential areas around Naples. Also that they will take into consideration the mostly low rise structures near the
proposed project. This structure will clearly be out of place. Because of its height it will we viewed for miles and it will
stick out like a sore thumb.
Let me know if there is anything else that Ellen and I can do to help point out this egregious invasion of our visual space
in the Bay Colony Estates and Golf Club Communtiy.
Sincerely, Tom and Ellen
Thomas P. Dolphin
EO
Blaine Office 763-767-21 ST
Blaine Direct 763-792-3712
Blaine Fax 763-784-9127
9380 Central Ave NE
M111 -S Office 612 -378 -21sT
MPLS Direct 763-792-3712
MPLS Fax 612-372-4399
17 Washington Ave Suite 200
Blaine, Mn 55434 MPLS, MN 55401
tr@2 i s#centu_ryba_nk.corn
CM_UCMUWWWC
From: Jerry Thirion[mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 4:02 PM
To: Thomas Dolphin
Subject: Arthrex
The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or
suspicious origin.
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Jerry Thirion
Grom:
Csteffensr <csteffensr@aol.com>
ant:
Saturday, August 20, 2016 5:21 PM
To:
Jerry Thirion
Subject:
Re: Arthrex
Jerry,
This is an example of a frequently used tactic to attempt to secure a zoning variance when a significant portion
of those who have an interest in such a variance are not in residence. We have seen this in several of the
seasonal communities in which we have had residences. It is unfortunate that the governing bodies responsible
to grant such variances do not go out of their way to promote all tax paying affected citizens the opportunity to
express their views on matters such as this. We would object to this variance as it detracts from visual
enjoyment offered by Bay Colony and based on the summary provided by outside counsel has some other
features that would argue against it being granted, notwithstanding the precedent that may be set with this
approval.
Chris and Mary Sue Steffen
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <ha colon olfciub mailer.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
Jerry Thirion
';rom: Betty Fagan <bfagan@aol.com>
ent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 4:03 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Hi, Jerry,
Summer fun and games! This will teach all those snowbirds to fly off in May!
More seriously, this move on the part of Arthrex and Barron Collier obviously creates a
situation that demands a response. The height of the building alone will certainly affect
the whole neighborhood, to say nothing of the impact of the attendant services, traffic,
etc.
I have heard that the county has already granted Arthrex tax abatements and other
concessions to entice them to stay in the county, so I really wonder how much anything
we do can help, at this point. And we know that the timing of the meetings was not just
by chance. It also suggests that the whole area, including the space on the corner that
is currently occupied by that poorly performing shopping center might soon be up for
rebuilding. We could possibly see any number of mini -skyscrapers go up in that
ryuadrant
.pith ancillary medical -related businesses. Both sides of Goodlette-Frank along
Immokolee may become a medical park.
Well, whatever...... If there is a vote to be taken or a petition to be signed, count me in! I'll
hold your coat while you go and do battle! Just what you were looking for at this time of
year.....
Fond regards,
Betty
-----Original Message -----
From: Jerry Thirion<baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net>
To: Betty M. Fagan <bfagan@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 5:02 pm
Subject: Arthrex
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
1
Jerry Thirion
'prom: Trerice Jr Byron <bytrerice@aol.com>
.ent: Saturday, August 20, 201612:02 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Dear Jerry,
The information sent concerning the request by Anthrax for a zoning change raises far more questions than
answers . I would hope that you are able
to persuade reasonable minds to slow down the process until those that are most closely effected will have a
chance to understand what is being asked for
and why. It is imperative for continued neighborly respect that this consideration be made. Byron
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <bg+� cvlanygolfcL_2mailer.memfrst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
Jerry Thirion
crom: Gillian Lieberman <glieberm@gmail.com>
ent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 11:26 AM
To: Jerry Thirion
Cc: Stephen Petersen
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Hi,
Steve is sitting here with me, this is from both of us.
Thx for giving us the opportunity to voice or serious concerns about this new building project.
It is an eyesore and does not blend at all with the surroundings.
It will alter the peace and enjoyment for the members of the club , homeowners and increase
traffic .
I think it will impact our future membership--- I know we would not have joined if we saw this
building from the veranda when eating lunch. A large appeal is the peaceful rolling greenery
and fountains, and a feeling that you are getting away from urban development and being
surrounded by nature. This building would be jarring.
Thx
Gillian Lieberman and Stephen Petersen
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net>
,`rote:
> current
Jerry Thirion
crom: Hamilton, Robin M <Robin.Hamilton@morganstanley.com>
ant: Saturday, August 20, 2016 9:35 AM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: RE: Arthrex
Jerry,
If you think more bodies are helpful, I can be there the 30th at 5:30. Scot is traveling.
Thank you to you and Pete for getting in front of this. Send quite sneaky planning the mtg the end of August.
Robin.
Robin M. Hamilton
Senior Vice President
Wealth Advisor
Morgan Stanley Wealth Management
8889 Pelican Bay Blvd, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34108
'irect: 239-449-7863
E Fax: 239-236-1296
Robin.hamilton@morganstanley.com
NMLS# is 1290382
Sent via Good
-----Original Message -----
From: Jerry Thirion fl2 colonygolfclub@maiier.memfirst.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 05:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Hamilton, Robin M (Wealth Mgmt MS)
Subject: Arthrex
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of
device
Collier
Jerry Thirion
Brom: Frank Hermance <Frank.Hermance@ametek.com>
znt: Saturday, August 20, 2016 8:34 AM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for update. Here are my comments
The magnitude of the requested variances is extreme and should not be granted. As a relatively new home owner in the
Estates at Bay Colony one of the key reasons I selected this home was the feeling of seclusion. By granting these
variances my concerns are many. First, the feeling of seclusion will be compromised and lower the value of my home.
Second, the proposal will allow for even more buildings along the Estates fence which my home faces with similar
extreme variances and further reduce my home value. Third , the traffic patterns on Immokalee Road will become much
worse then today compromising access to the many stores and restaurants in the area and Fourth, the proposal has been
offered when many of us are away and can not voice our strong concerns in person which is a concern given the
magnitude of the proposal.
If these variances were in place when I was house hunting I would not have bought the home I am in. I never envisioned
our county allowing a change of this magnitude.
I am significantly opposed to this proposal.
yank
From: "Jerry Thirion"<baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net>
To: "Frank Hermance" <frank.hermance@ametek.com>
Date: 08/19/2016 05:02 PM
Subject: Arthrex
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a
respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very
substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have
significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most
ioticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace
Jerry Thirion
-rom: Marybeth Noonan <mbnoonan3@gmail.com>
,ent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 7:55 AM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Hi Jerry
We are concerned about the impact of the addition to the arthrex building however, we are unable to attend on
August 30th. Please communicate our concerns to the governing board at the meeting.
Thank you
MIke &Marybeth Noonan
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion<baycolony_golfclub(a)mailer.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples
Jerry Thirion
'nom: Richard Crawford <rcrawford@crawfordgrp.com>
,ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 10:07 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Jerry:
I think the proposed changes in the PUD would be very detrimental to Bay Colony residents and members as
well as the entire region. The height of the building would be aesthetically very unfortunate. There are no other
buildings of this height within view of the club. It would dominate the skyline.
The other major issue would be the impact the changes would have on traffic. Immokalee Rd is one of the main
roads that give access to 175. As such, it is already overcapacity. It has taken me as long as 30 minutes in
season to get from 41 to 175. Additional traffic would make the situation even worse.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion<baycolonygolfclub(a�mailer.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 111 green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
Jerry Thirion
MEMEMM
rom: Vince Pettinelli <vdp1503@gmai1.com>
ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 9:56 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: RE: Arthrex
Jerry, I like many others strongly oppose the Arthex building plan. Vince Pettinelli
From: Jerry Thirion [mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:02 PM
To: Vincent Pettinelli <vdp1503@gmail.com>
Subject: Arthrex
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11 th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples
Community Hospital, standing 102ft. high and approx.. 1/2 mile
away. The white building, which depicts the proposed Arthrex
1
Jerry Thirion
-nom: Tom Stallkamp <tomstallkamp@comcast.net>
.jent: Friday, August 19, 2016 9:16 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
I am disgusted at the total lack of adherence to existing planning standards by the fast -tracked
proposal of the requested Arthrex variance.
Intelligent community planning requires establishment of zoning standards that allow development to
grow along predictable guidelines.
The total disregard of the requested variance reinforces the criticisms of many rapidly expanding
areas in Florida. We had hoped that Naples was approaching development with a more thoughtful
plan.
A ten story plus building is impossible not to impact the residential environment surrounding the
proposed variance. The argument that the project it may incremental create jobs is understandable,
but is not be limited just to this specific site. Further, business conditions change, as with Hertz in
Bonita Springs, and a building is often more permanent than operating a business. Once it is built,
the impact on the surrounding residential areas will be a permanent negative influence.
I urge your rejection of the variance and a full impact study be considered if they wish to proceed.
Thomas Stallkamp
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
Jerry Thirion
'rom: john j <remondi@hotmail.com>
.sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 7:42 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Jerry, where does the 400 bed facility fit in? Not sure what you can do to stop this but I agree we sure should
know what it will look like. Are there any noise or shadow concerns? John Remondi
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion<baycolonygolfclub&m_a_iter.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Paoe
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11 th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples
Community Hospital, standing 102ft. high and approx.. 1/2 mile
away. The white building, which depicts the proposed Arthrex
Jerry Thirion
"rom: Tony Rossi sr <Tony@rmk.com>
.ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:23 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: RE: Arthrex
Hello Jerry
Although I have no knowledge of the local entitlement procedures I have been involved in so many of these that I do
have some comments. I would focus on the local traffic and congestion issues as best you can and the fact that the
height is not in keeping with the surrounding communities. We, most likely, have no right to protect our views. A
neighbors view is generally not a consideration in zoning matters. I would be surprised if our opinion mattered at all in
the process. Also the fact that it appears to be "fast tracked" especially before the snow birds return, probably means
this is already a done deal. In short, I would not waste a lot of money on legal fees. This is most likely a big pickup in
real estate taxes and maybe jobs and the opinion of a lot of rich guys at a county club may not mean much.
From: Jerry Thirion [mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 4:02 PM
To: Tony Rossi sr <Tony@rmk.com>
Subject: Arthrex
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
Jerry Thirion
7rom: Drmsrubin <drmsrubin@yahoo.com>
gent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:19 PM
To: Jerry Thirion; annedrubin@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Jerry
Excellent summary.
Please express our strong displeasure with this Arthrex proposal. Given that there are a number of other sites for
commercial buildings in Naples and furthermore given the resources of the Arthrex company there should be
no issue with them finding an alternative site which is much more suitable for their project in that way they can
do their expansion without impinging on our residential area. I too would be most concerned about the
environmental impact.
I would think that most of the membership would have strong reservations regarding this Arthrex proposal.
Mark Rubin
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <baycolony. olg felubamailer.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
Jerry Thirion
'rom: John M.Brilbeck <johnbrilbeck@comcast.net>
.,ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:10 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Jerry,
I would agree that answers to the attached questions would be significant but as we all know this is probably
pre -ordained and the process just a formality.Naples is so desperate to diversify its economy that i am sure none
of the planners or commissioners would dare vote against it and it would give the tax base a pretty good shot.l
am sure Arthex said they need this now and if they do not receive quick approval they will go someplace else. A
chance the county does not want to take.
I would suggest an alternative approach would be to get some concessions from an infrastructure and aesthetic
standpoint.e.g.widening goodlette -frank,landscaping color,etc.
On the surface I do not necessarily oppose the project on the surface it is an office building after all not a steel
mill,but again there are not enough specifics other than the height of the building to take a stand I wish we could
see it like the NDN building to understand the scope. 205ft is about 18-20 stories is that right. That is a big
building but done right may actually be attractive. Is Arthex a good neighbor?
Anyways those are my thoughts.
John Brilbeck
On Aug 19, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <b&ycolonyigolfclub@mailer.memf rst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to VIeW as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
Jerry Thirion
prom: Robert Saba <pegbobsaba@comcast.net>
.ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:51 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Hello Jerry, While I am unable to attend the August 30th meeting I remain very concerned about this project
going forward.
If this Arthrex project gets approval what's to stop similar high rise building in the future. I will support the
Club in any way I can. Thank you and regards, Bob Saba.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <ba cy olonygolfclubgmailer.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples
Community Hospital, standing 102ft. high and approx.. 1/2 mile
Jerry Thirion
7rom: gerald clark <g1219c@yahoo.com>
.ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:48 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Jerry, I hope all is well with you this summer.Kathy and I have had a nice summer, but we did not expect the
Naples" weather that we have been having here in NJ for most of August.
My initial reaction is "job, jobs, jobs,"! That, as is appropriate, is what means the most to the community and
the individuals involved. Also, there would be little sympathy on the part of any zoning board, or city council,
for the potential visual problems which it would cause for some of the members of BCGC. That is also the risk
that a club in a very dense, high income area, has to experience.
What I would ask at this stage is what are our possible alternatives to propose which would reduce some of
problems that we would experience. Couldn't Pritt give us now, or in the near term, some ideas without
committing to anything?
Thanks, Jerry
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion<baycolony_golfclubamailer.memlirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to Mew as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
comtilunity. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
Jerry Thirion
`nom: Robert M Amen <rmamen@gmail.com>
,ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:41 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Jerry
Clearly the size of the proposed building is out of keeping with the entire surrounding area. It is multiples larger
than any commercial and would have significant impact on the residential area. My guess is they want
something half the size and are going about this to negotiate something more reasonable
The city fathers will see his as a nice benefit so we have a problem.
Please make sure that A they follow all the regs on timing, reviews ,etc.
B What zoning regs exist for the area and nearby areas that may set a limit
C Lastly we need to push back the timing to enable all the residents who may have an interest to return and be
heard. They are being slick with their timing. Our goal is delay, delay, delay. This really would be ugly.
Shouldn't be taller than NCH.
I guess I'm not too old to go on a picket line!
Let me know how I can help
Rob
On Friday, August 19, 2016, Jerry Thirion <baycvlonygolfclub mailer.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental a building
of the size proposed is out of keeping wi issues.
Jerry Thirion
'rom: Court Larkin <cplarkin@aol.com>
,ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:32 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
We certainly need more information! I use Creekside at least once a week. It would seem better for them to
build at Ava Maria where they are currently expanding and would not interfere with Bay Colony, Pelican
Marsh, NCH etc
S
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <bgycolon goIfelLib(d)niailer,illernfirst,net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click mere to WON as a WQ0 Pacie
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples
Jerry Thirion
'rom:
Jrsifer@aol.com
.jent:
Friday, August 19, 2016 5:25 PM
To:
Jerry Thirion
Subject:
Re: Arthrex
Dear Jerry,
This proposed construction of a 205 foot high building by Arthrex at the location noted is totally unacceptable and should
not be allowed to be constructed. It will ruin the view from the golf course, looks totally out of place with the
surrounding areas, and will have a significant negative impact on the clubs ability to attract new members. Furthermore,
such an odd looking obstruction will definitely decrease the value of property surrounding the Bay Colony Golf club.
This must be stopped!!!
Dick Stonesifer
In a message dated 8/19/2016 5:02:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net writes:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 111 green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
Jera Thirion
-rom: Al Gamper <gampera908@ao1.com>
,sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:19 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: Re: Arthrex
Jerry. Is there any way to suggest a bigger footprint for building and cut height in half Also is pelican marsh
effected? Will they join us? Al
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion<baycolonyizolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Pane
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes
and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and
community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a
205ft. high building that would replace the current building
which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious
consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues.
The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the
pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from
the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For
comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the
same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft.
high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples
Community Hospital, standing 102ft. high and approx.. 1/2 mile
away. The white building, which depicts the proposed Arthrex
Jerry Thirion
-From: Harry Debes <harry@debes.us>
:ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:10 PM
To: Jerry Thirion
Subject: RE: Arthrex
Jerry — here are my comments:
I am very much opposed to the "fast track" process that is taking place — at a time when many residents are away for the
summer.
In order for Collier County to properly and adequately canvass the concerns of the local taxpayers, the information
meeting and also the meeting to vote on this proposal should be re -scheduled to a later date.
regards,
Harry
From: Jerry Thirion [mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:02 PM
To: Harry Debes <harry@debes.us>
Subject: Arthrex
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click Here to View as a Web Page
Jerry Thirion
From:
Robert A. Clifford <rac@cliffordlaw.com>
_ient:
Friday, August 19, 2016 5:09 PM
To:
Jerry Thirion
Cc:
Angela Smith
Subject:
Re: Arthrex
Jerry, I say "Sue the Bastards!!"
Seriously, I would instruct our lawyers to inject themselves into this process to make sure that the community
gets a fair hearing --when people are around and available. The "fast-track" and off-season timing are red flags
that something may be off. Ask our lawyers if we can and if we could move to enjoy them and tie this up until
the season when people return.
Robert A. Clifford
120 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL, 60602
Phone: 312-899-9090
rac(a-),cliffordlaw.com
nvw.CliffordLaw.com
FEI
0
Sent from my iPad.
Please forgive my typos.
On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <baycolon oYg lfclub ,mailer.rnemfust.net> wrote:
Having Trouble Viewing this Email?
Click hl@re_to View as a web Page
Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members,
Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device
manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier
County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation
from their current planned unit development document.
Jerry Thirion
'prom:
Basil <basil.and@comcast.net>
,ent:
Friday, August 19, 2016 5:07 PM
To:
Jerry Thirion
Subject:
Re: Arthrex
We must object to this complex. Naples foes not need this monstrosity and the value of our golf
club would be degraded
They can move further East
Basil
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 11:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net>
wrote:
> application